Friday, September 05, 2008

The noted blogger Fjordman is filing this report via Gates of Vienna.For a complete Fjordman blogography, see The Fjordman Files. There is also a multi-index listing here.

The Dutch cartoonist Nekschot (‘Neck Shot’), a friend of the late Theo van Gogh, the filmmaker who was ritually slaughtered by a pious Muslim in 2004, in 2008 became the first-ever cartoonist in modern Western history to be arrested. Gregorius Nekschot was kept in custody for 30 hours for cartoons that are “discriminatory against Muslims and people of darker skin,” as the Public Prosecutor’s Office (OM) in Amsterdam put it. Around 10 police dragged him out of his home in Amsterdam, seized his computer and telephone and told him that his real name would be revealed. Nekschot was released two days later. A complaint had been filed against him in 2005 by the Dutch imam Abdul Jabbar van de Ven, a radical Dutch convert to Islam. After the murder of filmmaker Theo van Gogh, Abdul Jabbar van de Ven said on TV he would thank Allah if he could arrange for the Islam-critical MP Geert Wilders to die, “for example of cancer.”

The arrest of Gregorius Nekschot for a “Multicultural thought crime” was another low for the Netherlands, a country which a few years earlier was known for its openness and tolerance. It was also a new low for the “free West,” which suddenly looks a lot less free.

“Hedegaard was of the view, however, that the Danish establishment’s benign neglect of Islamic extremism must have deeper causes than snobbism or hippie nostalgia.. After all, he said, the Islamicization of the Nordic countries was ‘the most fundamental transformation’ they’d experienced in a millennium. Something so monumental, in his opinion, could not be explained simply by a few people’s foolishness or class snobbery. “Heavy consequences,” he insisted, ‘must have heavy causes.’ The surrender of Denmark to Muslims had to be the result of some deep-seated compulsion….His theory was that Western Europe’s ongoing surrender to radical Islam had its roots in the psychic devastation of the First World War. For while that conflict marked America’s ascent to the rank of Great Power, Europeans took it as a devastating proof, Hedegaard said, ‘that our culture was worthless. It was basically destroyed. And that prepared the way for two sorts of totalitarianism’ — Nazism and Communism — and for ‘atrocities of a magnitude that is hard to imagine.’ Those atrocities, in turn, placed upon Europeans an unbearable burden of guilt. The Nazis, he said, ‘made Europe think it is doomed and sinful…and deserves what it has coming.’“- - - - - - - - -The destruction brought about by WW1 and WW2 did indeed finished off much of Europe’s self-confidence. The problem is more complex than that, though. If you look at which countries suffered the most during these wars, there is no automatic correlation between that and which countries are most culturally suicidal today. Poland, for instance, is less suicidal than my country, which didn’t take part in WW1 and suffered less than many other nations during WW2. Sweden didn’t (formally) participate in either war, and neither did Switzerland. Both of these countries lack a colonial history (if you believe this is about a “post-colonial guilt complex”), yet Sweden is absolutely crazy, as those reading my essays would know.

In June 2008, Swedish lawmakers voted in favor of a controversial bill allowing all emails and phone calls to be monitored in the name of national security. The new law, set to take effect on January 1st, 2009, will enable the National Defence Radio Establishment (FRA) — a civilian agency despite its name — to tap all cross-border Internet and telephone communication. Critics say the law will make Sweden more totalitarian than the former Communist dictatorships of Eastern Europe. Even the infamous Stasi in East Germany didn’t have as extensive means of surveillance against private citizens as Sweden will now have.

In order to explain this, we need to consider the prolonged and extremely destructive impact of Marxism in its various forms. It is supremely ironic that the countries in the western half of Europe, which during the Cold War were a part of the “free world,” are in some ways more damaged by Marxist indoctrination than the countries in the eastern half of Europe, where people lived under Communism for generations. We in the West have been undermined by a different strand of Marxism, one seemingly less serious since we have no Gulag here (yet), but one which slowly erodes your very will to live and removes your identity as a people.

According to Czech President Václav Klaus, although Communism or the “hard version” of Socialism is probably over this has not automatically led “to a system we would like to have and live in.” The dominant economic and social system of current Western civilization is based on big and patronizing government, on “extensive regulating of human behavior and on large-scale income redistribution.”

Klaus urges all freedom loving Europeans “to understand this contemporary version of world-wide socialism, because our old concepts may omit some of the crucial features of what is around us just now. We may even find out that the continuous use of the term socialism can be misleading.” The new version of post-Marxist collectivism wants privileges for organized groups, and “in consequence, a refeudalization of society…, multiculturalism, feminism, apolitical technocratism (based on the resentment against politics and politicians), internationalism (and especially its European variant called Europeanism) and a rapidly growing phenomenon I call NGOism.”

It is no exaggeration to say that a generation after the Cold War ended, various Marxists or related left-wing groups control much of the education system and the media in the Western world. As I’ve written in my essay Democracy and the Media Bias, native Europeans face three enemies simultaneously when fighting against the Islamization of their lands:

Enemy 1 is the anti-Western bias of our media and academia, which is a common theme throughout the Western world.

Enemy 2 are Eurabians and EU-federalists, who deliberately break down established nation states in favor of a pan-European superstate.

Enemy 3 are Muslims.

The fact that members of the media and the academia tend to be more, sometimes a lot more, left-leaning politically than the average populace is well-attested and documented in all the countries I have been able to check, and it seems a fair guess that this trend is universal throughout the Western world. But why is the situation like this?

One could claim that this is the effect of the Western Cultural Revolution of the 1960s and 1970s, or alternatively a product of the Cold War. But if you believe the esteemed Friedrich Hayek in his writings about Socialism and the intellectuals, the trend was discernible already in the late 1940s, before the Cold War. How do we explain that? One plausible hypothesis could be to assume that those with conservative viewpoints will generally direct their energies towards business and commerce, while those with left-leaning sympathies desire to get into positions where they can influence people’s minds. Over time, this could mean that in an open society, the media, the academia and the intelligentsia will tend to gravitate towards the political Left and become dominated by people sympathetic towards Utopian ideas. Because of the positions they have gained, their political bias will significantly influence what information is presented to the general masses, and how.

Hungarian blog reader Bela, who experienced Communism personally, believes that “Marxism is not dead but resurrected and alive.” He blames the rising levels of totalitarianism in the EU on the general passivity of Western Europeans, who do not rebel against the EUrocrats, but meekly comply with their regulations: “There was no mass protest against Solana and Co. Ever. Anyplace. They succumbed to the cherished Socialism, willful Islamisation and loss of freedom of expression bereft of duress or the threat of it should they refuse to comply; — without hiccups or growling.”

I think he is a little bit harsh in saying so. The most important reason for the general passivity is that the average European still doesn’t understand just how bad the EU is and how organized its pro-Islamic betrayal is. The EU’s primary weapon is deception, combined with extreme levels of organizational complexity and incomprehensible bureaucratic language. The EU’s secondary weapon is the general Western respect for law and reluctance to stage armed rebellions. Nevertheless, it is true that Western Europeans follow rules and regulations without asking too many questions. I have earlier asked whether the EU could have been established if people had not been accustomed to living in complex welfare state bureaucracies before, and the likely answer to that is no. The EU is an empire of bureaucrats, established in countries where bureaucrats already ruled. Their work has been made easier by populations conditioned by generations of indoctrination with cultural Marxism.

According to Bela, cultural Marxism is an invention by the Leftists A. Gramsci and G. Lukacs to destroy the Western capitalism. Since under Soviet occupation there was no capitalism in the Eastern bloc to be destroyed, cultural Marxism never came to existence over there and contemporary Easterners have never heard of it. This corresponds well with the views I have expressed in the essay Political Correctness — The Revenge of Marxism.

I have heard people who have grown up in former Communist countries say that we in the West are at least as brainwashed by Multiculturalism and Political Correctness as they ever were with Communism, perhaps more so. The scary thing is, I sometimes believe they are right. A Norwegian newspaper called Dagens Næringsliv exposed the fact that the largest “anti-racist” organization in the country, SOS Rasisme, was heavily infiltrated by Communists and extreme Leftists. They infiltrated the organization in the late 1980s and early ‘90s, in other words, during the downfall of Communism in Eastern Europe. They went directly from Communism to Multiculturalism, which should indicate that at least some of them viewed Multiculturalism as the continuation of Communism by other means. It speaks volumes about the close connection between economic Marxism and cultural Marxism. They just have different means of reaching the same ends.

The separation of church and state in the West paved the way for greater political liberty, but it was never intentionally designed to do so. In other words: One of the greatest inventions in European history was unplanned. In contrast, the Communist societies in Eastern Europe planned the entire society down to the last detail, and they failed miserably. The lesson is: You cannot plan everything and shouldn’t try. Yet the EU is now doing this same mistake, only in a slightly different way. That is why calling it the EUSSR is more than just a joke.

Right now, some countries in Eastern Europe are healthier than most countries in Western Europe. The problems of Multiculturalism have infected the entire Western world, not just Western Europe, but they have become institutionalized to an alarming degree in the EU. Maybe the countries of east-central Europe will be the strongholds of European civilization in this century; that is conceivable. But as long as they are members of the European Union, the official Multiculturalism and cultural Marxism of the EUSSR will slowly but surely destroy them, too. It’s only a matter of time. This is why it is of such great importance to destroy the EU, to ensure that at least some regions of Europe can survive this and hopefully regenerate.

According to blog reader Bela: “You are mistaken in this regard: as you know I am not mincing words and I prefer to be harsh only to underscore my point. Eastern Europeans are not ‘gentleman’-like people like Westerners. They are uncivil and savages (I am too): remember the Balkans, no amount of bloody Russian oppression stopped the Hungarians to rebel in 56, so did the Czech in 68, the Poles all the times. These people are hard headed and rough, immune to the niceties of the Western ‘intellectuals’; unless you curse and use vulgar expressions they don’t even understand what the hell are you talking about. No amount of EU brainwashing will change the prevailing mentality regardless whether it’s good or bad or disgusting. When I was in E. Europe last year nobody talked about the EU; the farther you are from the center the less influence you have over distant events.”

I have used the word “totalitarian” about the EU a number of times. What I mean by that is not that the EU is a fully totalitarian entity today, but that it is adopting measures which will increasingly move the organization and the continent towards totalitarianism. Frankly, the pace with which the EU moves in a totalitarian direction is greater than I anticipated a couple of years ago. This trend has been aided by the tensions created by mass immigration in general and Muslim immigration in particular. I have more than once wondered whether mass immigration has been introduced specifically to destroy any internal coherence in formerly stable, democratic nation states and thus facilitate the transfer of power to a new authoritarian oligarchy. Even if that wasn’t the intended result, it certainly is the actual result.

History has demonstrated that in order commit evil on a truly monumental scale, you need the support of ideology backed by bureaucrats, jurists and the machinery of a totalitarian state. Since Socialism generally leads in a totalitarian direction, facilitated by modern technological advances, an all-encompassing state will make organized violence against certain groups more likely.

The Hungarian author Imre Kertész, Holocaust survivor and winner of the Nobel Prize in Literature, writes in the magazine signandsight.com that “the genuine novelties of the twentieth century were the totalitarian state and Auschwitz. The anti-Semitism of the nineteenth century, for instance, was as yet barely able, nor even would have wished, to imagine a Final Solution. Auschwitz, therefore, cannot be accounted for by the common-or-garden, archaic, not to say classical concepts of anti-Semitism….In order to murder millions of Jews the totalitarian state had need, in the final analysis, not so much of anti-Semites as good organisers. We need to see clearly that no totalitarianism of party or state can exist without discrimination, and the totalitarian form of discrimination is necessarily mass murder.”

Discrimination against native Europeans is now virtually mandatory in the EU, as they are the only ethnic groups who should not be allowed to retain their culture and identity. Despite the fact that racist violence targeting whites from southern Africa to Western European cities is now a daily occurrence, racism against whites is rarely presented as a problem. It is presumably OK, merely an extension of the official government policies.

Kertész warns, timely in these Multicultural days, that “a civilisation that does not clearly proclaim its values, or which leaves these proclaimed values high and dry, is stepping on the path to perdition and terminal debility. Then others will pronounce their values, and in the mouths of these others they will no longer be values but just so many pretexts for untrammeled power, untrammeled destruction.”

This is exactly what is happening in the capital city of the European Union, in Brussels, Belgium. In September 2007 Freddy Thielemans, the mayor of Brussels, banned a demonstration against the Islamization of Europe, even though virtually all kinds of demonstrations are usually allowed. When some demonstrators did show up for a peaceful demonstration anyway, they were brutally arrested by the police. According to Thielemans, “I decided to forbid the September 11 demonstration,” the mayor wrote, because “First and foremost the organizers have chosen the symbolic date of 9/11. The intention is obviously to confound the terrorist activities of Muslim extremists on the one hand and Islam as a religion and all Muslims on the other hand….Such incitement to discrimination and hatred, which we usually call racism and xenophobia, is forbidden by a considerable number of international treaties and is punished by our penal laws and by the European legislation.”

Mr. Thielemans’ ruling Socialist party, the largest party in Brussels, caters for Muslim immigrants. The majority of its municipal council are Muslims. Even though Mr. Thielemans is against criticism of Islam, he doesn’t mind mocking Christians. In 2005, upon hearing the news of the death of Pope John Paul II, he ordered “Champagne for everyone!” This means that the authorities in the heart of the EU are enforcing sharia law and banning the natives from protesting against their own displacement. The authorities no longer have any legitimacy whatsoever.

Native Europeans are guinea pigs in an evil social experiment, a recycled version of the Communist idea of perpetual peace. Since wars are caused by “differences,” the way to permanently end all wars is to permanently end all differences. While the Communists focused on economic differences, the Globalists and Multiculturalists focus on cultural, religious and racial differences. Once these have been erased and all people have been merged into one, starting with white majority Western nations since they are most “different,” we will all live in peace. There will be no more national borders or national laws. All laws will be passed by the United Nations, and the world will be as one. We will be one global nation, one nation, under sharia. So we are being raped and murdered, but it’s for a good cause. The sooner we accept our own state-sponsored eradication, the better..

I wonder what future generations will call this time period. The Age of Insanity? The Age of Humiliation? Or perhaps the Age of Betrayal? There are many alternatives. Let us hope it will be followed by an Age of Revival.

97
comments:

There was however a considerable amount of internal commie propaganda similar to multiculturalism. For instance, the simultaneous celebration of all the other ethnicities in the USSR, and simultaneous repression of native national expression in the republics.

Call it what is is! Communism was Marx applied to economics, political correctness in Marx applied to culture and multiculturalism is Marx applied to race.

I have a profoundly dissenting view of Fjordman's over the root cause of PC/Mutliculturalism.

Perhaps it is because I am an American, where the various cultural institutions were too big to be infiltrated with Marxists, and were in any event purged during the late 1940's-1950's.

By the time Daltron Trumbo returned to Hollywood, for example, he was an old and not very important bit player outside the youth culture.

No, I think the answer can be found in the types of men (and women) who entered into these cultural institutions: film, television, music, publishing, politics, NGOs, the law, finance, media, and so on.

These people were almost uniformly wealthy, from middling wealth to great wealth. The Kennedys, Barbara Ehrenreich, Norman Mailer, Susan Sontag, would be good examples. They sought to protect the wealth they had from threats and competition, and to increase it where they could. They largely sought "prestige" occupations instead of entrepreneurial ones that could generate greater wealth (Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Steve Wozniak) but took on greater risk.

Their primary threats were quickly identified as middle and working class whites who want change and entrepreneurship so they could become potentially wealthy too (thus diluting the existing aristocracy's social power and particularly, mating opportunities for men).

This explains to me the puzzle that European leadership (anti-White, anti-Native) and American leadership (see Harold Myerson in the Washington Post decrying the Republican Party's identity as "whiteness" instead of "our multicultural future"). America is 75% white. Europe while with significant and growing Muslims from various places, still is at least that number if not more.

Why not the obvious? Identify the minority as the "enemy" and rally as the "defender of the nation?" Since that would be the easiest and quickest way to success electorally, absent all considerations of morality and anything else, given that politicians are at best simply amoral, and will do whatever brings them the most power?

IMHO because that would cede far too much power to the threat of the middle/working class whites who want social, economic, and cultural change, breaking the stasis of the aristocracy that runs Western society since about 1955.

The bigger explanation is that WWII was terribly disruptive to ALL the elites, threatening their power and the ability particularly to pass onto sons comparative advantages in mating with the top women. In Sweden no less than Spain, or England, or France. That PC/Multiculturalism is the natural product of elites seeking to destroy their competitors among poorer, less influential whites. That when Pols say they will be happy to live under Islam, they mean they will be happy when their sons have no competition for mates from less wealthy white men, and severely underestimate the power of Muslim competitors.

In Eastern Europe, the old elites were wiped out by the Communists, who in turn were killed or ousted after 1989. Newer leadership means more affinity for change and growth and power to the people -- the aristocracy has not become ossified and terribly risk averse.

The attempt at drawing any kind of connection between WWI and the present willful Islamisation by the EU elite appears to be a tad far fetched idea. Equally dubious perception is to suppose some mystical element like "psychic devastation" behind the current predicament.

I also believe - no matter how plausible appears to be at first glance - that there is no direct connection between "physical" and "ideological" Islam: the first belongs to the post WWII guest worker program devoid of ideological content, while the second is premeditated, opportune tool against the Western civilization.

I absolve the illiterate Muslims from this latent, inner civil war that fester in W. Europe: this is an all EU rot and Ali Baba is merely a pawn in this game at this juncture and Ali doesn't know a thing about it.

I concur with "fellow peacekeeper" in his correct analysis, that is, Marxism was the launching pad which had set in motion the movement of self destruction.

But why in Europe and not in the US?Because Europe's roots go back to feudalism which was a strictly structured class society that put a break on the individual's freedom to move up on the social ladder and stifled all individual initiative.Conversely the US remained an "open society" the land of opportunity which harnessed the creative human energy towards positive goals irrespective of social classes.

The tremendous social tension in Europe lead to Marxism, Fascism, revolutions and ultimately will pave the road to the pending collapse of the entire EU civilization: Ali Baba will reap the fruit of the dying society without much effort.

It is called fear - fear of being ridiculed; fear of being ostracized in society; fear of being labelled a racist, Islamophobe, or bigot; fear of confrontation; fear of bodily harm and the list goes on and on.

People need to stop being politically correct and speak up and out; much to their surprise, they will realize they have far more allies with similar views than they thought. These allies need to unite and support one another; before they know it, their numbers will grow and they'll have a movement on their hands. Why do we allow other people to control what we think and say? Well we don't! Unite and speak up. Everyone, everyday, needs to say to anyone something they believe is politically incorrect, but true - break the silence. You can do this face to face, phone, e-mail, letter, blog comment, blog post, whatever. When the opportunity arises to say something you believe is politically correct and you feel the desire to keep quite, well, do not whimp out - say it. We've all got to get from under this politically correctness bullcrap.

I agree with Fjordman. As regarding to freedom of speech Eastern Eruope is much more healthy than Western Europe. I was 9 when communism ended in 1989. So I grew up during the post-communism years in a hectic and crazy environment full of corruption and poverty, but with full and complete freedom of speech. And this is still the case. You could say whatever you want, wherever you want yo, as loudly as you feel like... the worst thing that can happen to you is nobody giving a damn.

Bela is right, Eastern Europeans are not like Westerners. Most of us are not obedient, orderly , disciplined people. Also during the communism, Romanian were making jokes about Ceausescu and the communists. We all heard the propaganda, but nobody believed it. Not even the guys spreading it. We are now in EU and I watch with horror how the west is developing, and what will sooner or later come to us. I wish I knew how Eastern Europeans will react. There will be a little more oposition than in the West to the crazy marxist politics coming from Brussels, but we also have our share of cool youngsters wearing palestinian scarves. But we have complete freedom of thought. Nobody is trying to tell us what to think or what to say. There is no such thing as multiculturalism and politicaly correctness. We are not afraid to say anything, the kind of fear I lived when I lived in Belgium for a period.And also, I can see my friends, that have been in France, UK, Germany for a few years, I can see that they are changing. They are being worked on by multiculturalism. And I can see this happening to people that knew what multiculturalism and politicaly correctness are, so they were prepared. It's not easy to withstand it.

On the other side Westerners, and I got the chance to talk to quite a few dutch and flemish, most of them, bought the whole america hating, pro palestina, anti-capitalism "narative" that their marxist leaders fed them for decades. The brainwashing done by multiculturalism, with it's "respect" for different cultures is so big, that people have completely stoped imagining that somebody could think in another was as they do. Different cultures are seen just as different colors you paint your hair with. It has become very hard to imagine that some people REALLY think differently. They really want completely different things, not just peace and flowers (see here most muslims). And with people that want war you have to fight, you have NO choice!

None of the belgians, dutch and so on I talked to were horified by acts like the one in Brussels 9/11 2007, and by all kinds of restriction on free speech, arrests of cartoonists. They didn't really knew about these things and didn't really care.They agreed that free speech is good, but you cant use it to insult minorities because you are being racist...blahblagI have no real hope for the future in the West, not at all, I just hope that the East will not let itself be fooled by this New Communism, 20 yrs later the old one. And the last one was also imposed on us with the help (or lack of help) of the gentelmen in the west.

Excellent essay by Fjordman. However, I would have to disagree that Muslims, per se, are our enemy. I would instead argue that:

(1) Enemy 1 are Marxist media operatives, intellectuals, and local government representatives,

(2) Enemy 2 are Eurabians, EU-federalists, and American (US) globalists, who deliberately break down established nation states in favor of a pan-European superstate,

Enemy 3 are the alien/foreign settlers in our communities, including Africans, Muslims, and ordinary voters on the Left, who practice a politics of racial agitation, harrassment, and subversion.

For our project to succeed, we must stop demonising the ordinary Muslim or African in the street, and instead focus on the Marxist Power Elite. The West has a Muslim problem only because the Marxist Power Elites have created it. It is our job to undo it, after we have taken back power. We must confront the Power Elite in our countries first.

The way to awaken the indigenous populations of Europe to the grim fate awaiting them, is to stage a series of VERY BIG events designed to draw attention to EU tyranny and to rally patriotic Europeans. This is much easier to accomplish than it sounds.

Let us hope that future generations call our time period the Age of Peace, the calm before the storm, i.e., the era preceeding the next Civil War in the West.

We should not forget that a great many of intelligent, well-educated and well-informed people are quite aware that their nations are dying out, but they tolerate or support this development, because they approve of it. I often debate with such people and it feels like looking into an abyss because no argument is ever going to convince them. It's as useless as trying to convince a muslim that his religion is wrong.

I have been fascinated with an idea I read recently that suggests that the real coming social conflict is between spiritually dead Marxist globalism-- Karl Rove meets Karl Marx-- and organized bodies of God-fearing peoples. I hope that doesn't sound too alarmist. By this reasoning Muslims and Christians are natural allies. Wouldn't that be an interesting development?

I don't see what force can potentially stand up to EU- and NAFTA-style oppressions except for revitalized religious groups. However, in the US our system of laws at least has the potential to resist or defeat any foe that threatens unwanted change to society. Apparently the Europeans cannot say the same.

"Perhaps it is because I am an American, where the various cultural institutions were too big to be infiltrated with Marxists, and were in any event purged during the late 1940's-1950's."

Where are you living? When there is a realistic prospect of Obama presidency, a complete takeover by the hardcore, Marxist left which already controls the MSM, Congress, all the TV stations, a multitude of organizations, the Universities etc. your statement sounds somewhat odd to say the least. Most of Europeans on this forum are not privy to the American political situation so please do not mislead them by stating your unsubstantiated perceptions.

The only sliver of hope is that while in the EU the overwhelming majority already succumbed to Cultural Marxism and there is no way out of it, in the US there is a more or less 50-50% societal division between the left and right. Nevertheless I am not too optimistic for the Leftist Jewish billionaires pouring huge amount of money for Obama and the MSM rooting for the Commies.

leadpb: Perish the thought. Muslims are enemies today, tomorrow and a hundred years from now. Hell, a thousand years from now. Islam is not an ally under any circumstances. The problem is that Islam is used as a tool by both sides in an intra-Western ideological civil war between Christians and post-Christian secularists. The latter group are by far the worst in allying themselves with Muslims, but as your example demonstrates, Christians are not immune to this folly, either.

Islam is hostile to Western culture both in its Christian and its secular versions. Islam has its own agenda and is not a tool. If you "ally" with Islam, Muslims will play secularists and Christians against each other and defeat both.

Fjordman's analysis is again brilliant and one despairs that he and his like are not invited into the corridors of power or at least more widely heard among the public.

Although commenters here emphasize different variables as the primary one, is it not "a perfect storm" with which we are dealing? A confluence of variables that in isolation would not be sufficient to topple Western civilization but in combination can do the job?

I seem to recall from high school history lessons at least a dozen factors co-operating to bring about "The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire".

Marxists have been boring away at Western institutions for several decades now and the undermining is at a critical point. Its inventions Multicult opened the gates of the citadel and PC prevented any reasonable defense.

Meanwhile, a primitive and supremacist ideology with over a billion adherents in the cult raises its ugly head, resuscitated from its desert obscurity by Western technological progress, need for oil and willingness to pay for it instead of merely conquering the barbarians and taking it as would have occurred in earlier times. Simultaneously, Christianity's wane has removed the bulwark that protected Europe once against Muslim invasion and beat it back into its caves.

Finally, liberal democracy has shown its natural evolution to be (in every western country given enough time) a dumbing down of the body politic and citizenry, a growing passivity and need for security at the price of liberty, sense of entitlement without work, promotion of short term, life deadening routes to "happiness" that are like a drug addiction over old-fashioned virtues such as duty, willingness to toil and delay gratification etc. and last but not least, a susceptibility to the worst ideas on offer (marxist and Islamic totalitarianisms) after the best, the ones that built our enviable civilization in the first place have been denigrated and sidelined for want of faith in them and effort.

As for Fjordman's speculation about what future historians will call the coming epoch, why not simply The Dark Ages redux?

Laine: "As for Fjordman's speculation about what future historians will call the coming epoch, why not simply The Dark Ages redux?"

Gee, thanks for cheering me up.

Costin: You are right. I recall one blog reader saying that while "hard" Socialism makes society homicidal, "soft" Socialism makes society suicidal. In the Communist dictatorships, people risked not just being arrested, but in the worst cases tortured and executed for disagreeing with the ruling ideology. It's not that bad here yet, but even if cultural Marxism is seemingly less serious than economic Marxism, it's long-term effects could prove even more harmful.

As I stated in the essay The Fall of France and the Multicultural World War, Multiculturalism, cultural Marxism and the idea of forced cultural equality, will collapse just as Communism, the idea of economic Marxism and forced economic equality fell. The difference is that when Communism was discredited in Eastern Europe, it was still Poles who lived in Polish cities, Bulgarians who lived in Bulgarian cities etc. When the veil of Multiculturalism disappears, it will be Pakistanis who live in London, Turks who live in Berlin, Algerians who live in Paris and Moroccans who live in Amsterdam.

"Nevertheless, it is true that Western Europeans follow rules and regulations without asking too many questions."

And so, six decades & change after the "end" of Nazism, one decade & change after the "end" of Communism, people are still goose-stepping around and following orders.

When you scratch the surface of Islamic extremism, Nazism, Communisim, Eurabianism, or whatever else, it is the same human frailties and the same human shortcomings that can be seen. All that is being changed is the packaging and marketing.

I must concur with Bela's response to Whiskey. I'm in Chicago--Obama county--where Angela Davis teaches at Northwestern and Bill Ayers, well you know. Any organization that's worth organizing is controlled by the far left, which in Chicago is spiced with liberal (pun intended) doses of corruption, nepotism and knife-in-the-gut political hardball.They control the media. They control the grants. They control the schools at all levels, where they indoctrinate, not educate (now I'm rhyming like Jesse Jackson, who's here as well).

Yankee Doodle: What is common to all the above mentioned ideologies is the concept that a self-appointed intellectual vanguard of social engineers should restructure the entire society and run it according to a centrally planned system. It is this concept we have to smash. Whether you call it Socialism or Fascism or Eurabian Multiculturalism is for the most part irrelevant. Same shit, different wrapping.

Another thing all totalitarian ideologies have in common is the total absence of anything resembling Socratic dialogue. Education is indoctrination, period. There is no point in searching for "truth" since truth is already given. The only question is how to present it to the masses and outlaw dissent.

"It is called fear - fear of being ridiculed; fear of being ostracized in society; fear of being labelled a racist, Islamophobe, or bigot; fear of confrontation; fear of bodily harm and the list goes on and on."

The mental rotting is so advanced with some Western European people -with due respect to the existing exceptions - that even on THIS FREE FORUM they try to censor one's opinion, classify certain words as "Politically Incorrect", they brainwashed themselves to the point that anything contrary to their convoluted perception provoke an hysterical reaction and a genuine outrage for the words one dare to use.On this forum! They are afraid of words! How quaint, amazing.

Yes, language was the first thing taken hostage by the leftists and they have been masterful in wielding it to create the Orwellian world we now live in, where everything means the opposite of its original true meaning, and where the Left has appropriated all the positive terms for itself starting with "liberal" and "progressive" and successfully painted the right with negative terms it spends all its time trying to refute - "We're not mean or stingy, we're not racist, (affirmative action is racist)" etc. etc.

All the facts in the world (documented proof that conservatives give more to charity etc.) have not been able to counter the power of language/slogans and repetition on impressionable minds.We have our own versions of "Two-legged bad! Four-legged good!" You all know the drill. I won't bother repeating them, doing the Left's work for them.

I comprehend what you say linguistically but I cannot internalize nor digest its meaning. As you noted, the few Easterners on this blog - including myself - we got used to say whatever was on our mind even when the secret police kept an eye on us. I used to open my mouth regardless where I was - just like others from the East - and I have a vast, extensive vulgar vocabulary to answer the weasels should they object to what I say.

I don't know what the hell are afraid of these Western people; I am unable follow the psyche behind it. It's worst than the Gulag for there are no armed guards over here and still they a trembling with fear. It's more ridiculous than serious.The funniest thing when these "intellectuals" engage into a turgid, pseudo intellectual arguments spouting off leftist clichés like "racist" and they expect that one will commit suicide on the spot...Let's flip the bird!

Saying that the West is "infiltrated" does not help too much. Why infiltrated and where those communists came from? Nazis also fought communist infiltration. I am a bit worried that those who supported Germans in WWII are still among most willing communism-fighters.

My guess is that to blame is not communism itself but the materialistic idea that we can find technical solution to any problem. Those who trust in God think that it is his task, not ours. And communist infiltration is the consequence, not the reason.

To clarify my previous post: evil is within ourselves, it is the dark part of our soul. When Europeans decided to personify evil and tried to physically kill what they thought was evil (communists) , they killed their selves. Communism is just the other side of European self. And islamization is the punishment which Europeans invented for themselves for that murder.

What is the solution? Admit ones fault. When you admit your fault, you don't need to punish yourself any more.

Apparently you are completely ignorant of the 20th. century Marxist revolutionary movements that enslaved half of Europe, exterminated 100 million people worldwide. You never heard of the stated goals of the Communist parties, never heard of the Communist Manifesto; in your troubled mind all these sad event never happened or just malicious invention of the sinful humans.

Your ignorance of modern history and political events that shaped our life is astonishing but not unique: there are countless people who wading through the life with eyes closed and not having the slightest understanding of the world around them. You have no idea what is going on here, down on earth, you are flying too high above the clouds where no human life exists, only spirits are dwelling devoid of blood and flesh.

Ypp: I agree with you that it is the concept of the State as God which is dangerous. What happened when Christianity retreated wasn't that God died, but that our expectations of God were projected onto the State.

But no, Marxist infiltration is, and has long been, very real. Some of the Western Marxists were supported by the KGB during the Cold War, and some of them, such as the various European AFA groups that harass "racists" who criticize mass immigration, had ties to the Communist regimes a generation ago. The connection exists.

Some really excellent insight observation and even many partial solutions offered here.Its a pleasure to read.I doubt many of the leftists who parrot the usual party lines have read Marx. Not Karl or Groucho for that matter. They parrot lines that have been spoon fed to them to the point, to quote Bloom in 'The Closing of The American Mind' you appear to have two heads' if you challenge the new orthodoxy of multiculturalism.

As this was an incremental take over an incremental recovery might be in order. The first step I think is to de-link racism with culture. It needs to be spread that to criticize or disapprove of the actions of another culture has nothing to do with that peoples position on a pantone chart.

Once people realize that culture is not race then it becomes much easier to look at cultural and religious practices and decide what is and is not a good thing for a liberal democracy.

It was a pernicious trick IMO to equate behavior with race. An extension of reasonable policies into the absurd not to mention a complete reversal of leftism of the 1960s

BelaI expected your objection. But someone else here doesn't know history, not me. You are probably a Hungarian. What about Hungarian communist revolution in 1919? What about German socialist revolution of 1918? What about Latvian military units which served as Lenin's personal guards? What about Georgian Stalin, Polish father of KGB Dzerzhinski, et cetera, et cetera?

My point is that communism is the dark part of European soul. Here Fjordman is right. But what is really disastrous, is to blame it on someone other and then fight that other. That leads to devastation.

1.What is exactly your question in regard to the various Bolshevik revolution you listed in your post?Being of Hungarian descent or other words Eastern European by birth, it makes me an expert of the Bolshevik saga that terrorized and killed millions.

2. "But what is really disastrous, is to blame it on someone other and then fight that other. That leads to devastation."

Your diction is not clear to me; do you mean that we accuse or blame others than the communists with those atrocities?

Care to elucidate your thought more "practical" way for its current form offers several possible interpretation depending on the proficiency level in English language .....

It could be called the Age of Insanity or the Age of Humiliation or the Age of Betrayal... or the Age of Islam Triumphant.

The Assyrian, boasting of all he has conquered, says:I removed the boundaries of the nations, I plundered their treasures; like a mighty one I subdued their kings. As one reaches into a nest, so my hand reached for the wealth of the nations; as men gather abandoned eggs, so I gathered all the countries; not one flapped a wing, or opened its mouth to chirp. Isaiah 10:12-14

Of course those here are chirping and protesting. But those here are too few. Fjordman: The most important reasons for the general passivity is that the average European still doesn't understand just how bad the EU is and how organized its pro-Islamic betrayal is. But how can this be? Are those of us here endowed with especially acute powers of observation? We see the truth, but most everyone else can't? That's a little hard to believe. Yes, most people are busy with their own lives, but is it really possible they can have their heads that deeply buried in the sand? I agree, cultural Marxism has indeed blinded many. But why is cultural Marxism so rampantly successful? How can its requirements come to outweigh one's own survival? It defies reason. Evidently, reason has its limits. The problem remains intractable.

The values we esteem, cut off from their ancient foundation, no longer have any strength, and so the Islamic invasion slips in and gathers the abandoned eggs.

From all the comments here, I find telling the absence of a major factor: with everybody's focus on "liberals", the "Leftists" and the "Marxians", nobody notices the massive fact that, when it comes to the issue of Islam, the vast majority of conservatives are politically correct multi-culturalists (PC MC). Virtually all conservatives parrot the PC MC axiom that Islam is a good religion, and that the vast majority of Muslims are harmless.

Now, why would the vast majority of conservatives be believers in the PC MC paradigm, if that paradigm is only a "Leftist" or "Marxian" phenomenon? Obviously, the problem of PC MC is larger than the terms "Left" and "Right". But one wouldn't get a whiff of that larger problem from reading the comments here.

@Erich: There's a simple explanation. One group is the active ingredient, the other group is the passive ingredient. The proselytizers of the PC MC faith are the marxists and communists, everyone who then believes them, adopts them, and parrots their lines are just the sheeple, and are hardly to blame for their own stances. It's the distinction between the evil and the gullible.

@vlad: Culture is just the extended phenotype of a race/ethnicity's genotype. Race creates culture and therefore culture can never detach from it. Any culture that doesn't promote your race's well-being is poisonous and should be discarded anyway.

@remington: People are stupid. They believe what they want to believe, or fear is true. Not to poke religious people, but I find their beliefs just as ridiculous and absurd as multiculturalism, and just as unbased on facts as the multi-Cult. Is it any surprise a new religion can be founded and gain a huge following with no basis in fact at all? What's important is it serves the people's psychological needs.

Universalism is a feel good belief system that asserts everyone is basically good and we all want the same things and we can all get along if we just make love not war. People don't like war, or risking their comfy lives or property. Egalitarianism makes everyone feel good because they don't have to do or be anything to be equal to their neighbors. What a deal! Furthermore, they have a lurking suspicion it's not true, but have faith, because they know how painful it would be to not believe in it. What if you do know the truth? Great, so now you know your country is doomed to die in 30 years, how does this make you feel? And what if people call you names for worrying about this realization? Better to just have faith.

The siren song of liberalism is just too good for the vast majority to resist.

@Laine: Wonderful analysis above. It is indeed a 'perfect storm' and liberal democracy does indeed degenerate to total collapse within, historically, a very short time of founding. To me it's an obvious social experiment gone wrong with reams of proof, including this election between Mccain and Obama, two amnesty supporters in a country that 80% opposes amnesty. Riddle me that.

"Nevertheless I am not too optimistic for the Leftist Jewish billionaires pouring huge amount of money for Obama and the MSM rooting for the Commies."

Unless those same "Leftist Jewish billionaires" plot against the last bastion of "European Civilisation" in form of a world power: Russia.

I think our differences over supporting or not Russia, Bela, reside in the fact that I want to see a "Renaiscence" in Western Europe you simpy do not give a damn.

For you, the "core" of Europe: Italy, The British Isles, the Germanic and Hispanic Nations can be used to feed the sharks. I don't. And who will save us? Poland? Hungary? Any other Nation that is not able to be independent for more than one or two centuries?

And even if what you desire - the destruction of Western Europe - happens? How will Eastern Europe survive? Yes, how when Italy, The British Isles, the Germanic and Hispanic Nations are what they (we)may eventually become?

Get serious, I thought we were not kidding over here, or perhaps, in our c(u)ore we are all litle Charles Johnsons.

Eastern Europeans are not different from western Europeans. They just haven't been oppressed by hippies for very long yet.

The muslim colonization of Norway began in the early 70s. Back then it was perfectly acceptable to express concern about the mixing of races in public. Today that would be unthinkable. Even in the 80s one could find mention in schoolbooks how muslim communists took the communal property bit to include sharing of wives. Today no negative facts about islam is permitted in school.

Give it time and you *will* see the same changes in Eastern Europe.

The way I see it European society has always been about an unstable balance of power between various classes. The industrial and french revolutions threw that out of balance and prompted new ideologies to shape Europe and to a lesser extent America.

WWI exacerbated the hostility between the lower classes and their betters at all levels of society. Morals fell and when people lost faith in their superiors they also lost faith in the countries and institutions those superiors led. A countermovement appeared in fascism that was then discredited by Hitler. Nazism ensured that authority, power, nationalism came to be seen as evil. With those values lost European society effectively died.

The children of the so-called greatest generation grew up with no values what-so-ever and were taught to view every society as equal as a counter to the super-patriotism of the nazis.

The vaccuum left by traditional authorites; parents, church, nobles and the rich was then filled by the mass media which by its very nature attracts the people least worthy of being guardians of public morals. The mass media is in a unique position in that it can present its values not by weight of authority, but by presenting it as what 'everyone' believes. And thus people adapt to that as is human nature.

The one thing we need to do is retake the media. The media drives the rest of society by establishing what views and facts people are allowed to have.

And in so doing we need to realize one thing that few people seem capable of. People as a rule do not think and form an opinion based on that. They *feel* and think up or simply parrot an excuse to feel the way they do. Are we on this forum brighter and better informed than most people? -Absolutely. And we need to remember that and take it into account in any countermovement. We can quote statistics and show the masses math all we want. But the winning arguments will always be emotional. We can talk of the need for white pride, but people have been conditioned to recoil in disgust from that. That is why we need to focus on greenlanders, jews and other nations.

It has been pointed out that communists went directly from communism to 'anti-racism'. It is also worth pointing out that communism, feminism, environmentalism etc are not about any of those things. Take the communists. The driving force behind that ideology post-war wasn't conditions in factories, class struggle or anything like that. The people who became communists were more likely to be sons of the well-to-do and the ones most exposed to the ivory towers. In short people who needed to latch onto something to justify their loathing of traditional Europe.

Feminism? -Always there to criticize any imagined evil of white, western patriarchy. -Never there to criticize slavery, violence and mutilation in foreign groups. In that fact we can see what truly motivates them.

And the same is true of environmentalism. Just as 'anti-racists' received an influx of commies so did the greenies. For instance look at what that one co-founder of greenpeace has to say on that subject. And just like the feminists they never seem to pay much attention to what non-western people do. You will see them taking a stand against Norway hunting non-endangered whales. You never see them take a stand against eskimos killing endangered whales. And the same is true for pollution in the US vs any 3rd world country.

And a special mention should go to the peaceniks who are suspiciously absent whenever anyone other than the US goes to war. You will note that human shields are nowhere to be seen then...

Investigating the causes of the PC MC mindset is interesting, but I am not sure if it gets us much nearer to success. I encountered a substantial number of smart people who are fully aware of the consequences of their PC MC doctrines but are willing to bear them until the end. We will never convince these people and they will never stop fighting us.

Most likely we will not be able to prevent our societies from becoming thoroughly Islamized, Arabized, Turkized or Asianized by the year 2040 or so. Even if our "right-wing" parties won 10%-20% of the vote, all the other parties will unite to exclude them or they will grant them some insignificant influence on the policies, which delays the process somewhat but doesn't stop it, and eventually drop them again when they become expendable. In Switzerland the SVP party has won near 30% of the vote for many years now, but hardly achieved anything. By working within the political systems of states, which were once ours, we do not oppose them as such and allow them to use us to their advantage (e.g. as productive taxpayers) before assimilating our people into some alien future hybrid nation.

Those of us who still want to retain their European ethnicity, should work towards new states, nation states exclusively for their people and for nobody else. We should threaten, bribe or persuade the powers that be, or appeal to their sense of fairness to vacate a piece of their territory so that we can resettle and found our nation state there. We should found organizations designed to achieve this goal, before we go extinct. That doesn't mean that we should give up on our parties or other projects, but we should be aware that success is not likely, before it is too late.

As for how to take back the media. What we need is someone with money/technical skills to set up a proper conservative equivalent to a tv-channel on the internet and cover all those stories the MSM refuses to. Using the technology for local news and perhaps the odd bit of entertainment should ensure an audience. It would make more people *feel* that there is a problem with the current mass-migrations and make them realize that they are not alone. Text and the occasional youtube video are simply not good enough. Radio isn't good enough.

Our views must be presented with the same polish as the leftie propaganda. -Look to history, radio worked well for Hitler when radio was new. The internet can work well for current opposition parties and allow them to influence what the hot issues in elections are going to be.

It may seem like a big thing, but there are already sites that stream movies. Why shouldn't the same sort of technology be used to break the hippie media monopoly? If it's too expensive for a single political party parties in several countries should pool their resources and make it happen.

And a proper resource site is also needed. There is hardly a week without some muslim atrocity against non-muslims. These should be properly catalogued for easy reference. Good arguments against mass-migration/islam and for defending the west should be listed. This would make it easier for people to take a stand through letters to newspapers or discussions with coworkers.

And we could need a proper forum for debating issues. I don't know about the rest of you, but I do not revisit old stories on this or other blogs to see if there is any new insight. And a blog like this is impractical for arranging campaigns in such matters as those kidnapped girls in Pakistan. And we really should do more than just bitch on the internet about it. By creating awareness of how christians are treated in Pakistan we can make people feel more strongly that mass migration should be stopped.

It is true that success isn't likely. But even if we have to perform an exodus to Iceland and fight for that bit of land we still need to have a sufficient number of people who feel strongly enough to fight. You need an army before you can fight a battle. We need to win hearts and minds before we can hope to rescue any part of the west.

On the surface it may not seem useful to understand the traitors. But through understanding hem we can find ways to discredit them and diminish their influence. Show people how the anti-racists support the atrocities against whites in Africa and people will be less inclined to listen to them.

1.On Russia: You never had a close, physical and lasting life experience with that country therefore you can believe and fantasize about the most extreme and beautiful imagery one can only dream of. Like believing in the Nirvana or in the Elysian Fields: once we discard the hard core reality and entering the realm of fantasy land there is nothing left to discuss about.Conversely, nations which had the misfortune to live under Russian oppression for decades have factual, empirical experiences as per Russia and those experiences are not flattering, not in the least.

Let me be nasty or sarcastic: I wish you everlasting happy life under "last bastion of "European Civilisation" in form of a world power: Russia."==========================================

last_norvegian:

"The people who became communists were more likely to be sons of the well-to-do and the ones most exposed to the ivory towers. In short people who needed to latch onto something to justify their loathing of traditional Europe."

Right on: take a look at the founder of the Western Marxism, George Lukacs, from Wiki:

"Most scholars consider him to be the founder of the tradition of Western Marxism. He was born Löwinger György Bernát to a wealthy Jewish family in Budapest. His father was József Löwinger a banker..."

An other infamous one, Max Horkheimer the founder of the Frankfurt School:"Born near Stuttgart, Germany, the son of a wealthy Jewish industrialist, Horkheimer attended University of Frankfurt..."http://www.bookrags.com/biography/max-horkheimer-soc/

And the darling of the Left: SOROS!=====================================Penny Pitzker the national finance chair of Barack Obama's presidential campaign:Born in 1959, Pritzker is a granddaughter of Abram Nicholas Pritzker** (1896–1986), founder of the Hyatt hotel chain.She is member of the Pritzker family of Chicago, one of America's wealthiest families.

"....The antimissile system strengthens the relationship between Eastern Europe and NATO, with real troops and equipment on the ground. It mocks Mr. Putin's dream of eventually restoring Russian hegemony over Eastern Europe.Dismantling the antimissile site, economic incentives and creation of a diplomatic partnership in the region – in exchange for joining an economic boycott of Iran – is an offer Mr. Putin would find hard to refuse."http://online.wsj.com/article/

Amazing, isn't it?Schumer, the Jewish Dem. Senator of N.Y. wants to deliver Eastern Europe back to Putin after they freed themselves from Russia.

Can you now understand the pent-up hatred by the people of E. Europe against the Leftist (neo-Marxist) Jews?

Russia created the whole nuclear crisis with Iran and this bastard Schumer wants to suck up to Putin on the back of Poland?

You're right. I have alreay thought about it. The problem is, there is no one with money available. Yet.

Types like the "owner" of the SVP (Schweizerich Volks Partei) have already apeared, it is just a matter of time unless the European Union prevents it definetly (more likely).

And the thing is that in small Nations like Norway, you could probabily set a non pay-per-view TV channel and everybody would watch it.

----------------------------------

Bela,

You are righy. But (today) I was not talking about Russia proper. I was showing to you that your brave little Central-Eastern Europe cannot live without Russia and Western Europe. It is logical. Nowadays, I don't know if North America can live without Western Europe (and vice versa) what about Central-Eastern Europe (Nations to which, the simple basic thing of being independent seem to be a hard difficult task).

I was not annoying you with Russia this time, I was trying to show you that America will be not Western (like Canada) in thirty years and that a "Europe" can not survive having Poland as its "super-power".

Bela, honestly, I think you should make more conssession your (natural) allies.

Do you know what price we payed for having faced Napoleon? The English virtually controled all our Economy for over a century. And that was better than French domination. We are now confrontated between the bad and the worst:It would be bad(???) for Milosevic to rule Serbia, but it is worst to have three muslim states in the Balkans.

BelaYou say I need more practical thinking. But your practical thinking did not lead you anywhere. You go in circles and looking fore someone to blame. Now its Russians, earlier it were Serbs or Jews or whatever.

My point is very simple. Communism is the dark side of Western soul. Every nation is subject to it, as show historical examples. When the West announced the victory in Cold War, it actually announced killing of part of its own soul. Multiculturalism is the self-imposed punishment for this murder.

What I suggest is to focus on one's personal survival, instead of saving the World from Evil Communists. That will eliminate the necessity of punishment. Actually, the emerging localist parties in Europe do exactly that - they don't fight communism and don't blame Jewish billionaires, but instead focus on local problems. And they are the only efficient European parties.

Well, that's exactly what Fjordman does: he says that Communism is still alive, and it lives in the West. Which is a great news, because we are not guilty of murder. The only one request - don't search for foreign infiltrations. KGB agents were not sent to each public school in the West.

By the way, recently I read stories by Scandinavian women-writers about Nils who traveled with geese, about Mummy-Troll and some others. That's a perfect examples of home-grown feminists with communist views.

The distant future is unknowable therefore my prophecy covers only a couple years ahead of us. Europe's dependency on Russia is limited to oil and gas because she produces no consumer goods of wider appeal or of high quality.The Russians' propensity to march into neighboring countries to "protect" themselves or their victims is not an attractive image for normally thinking people.I cannot fathom that 500 million Europeans will submit to Putin's whim forever who would shut off the oil valves every Monday because he got pissed off for whatever reason: eventually something nasty thing will happen in this type of unhealthy relationship.The fake outrage concerning the 10 rockets is a good example because Putin has THOUSANDS of nukes facing Europe so the purpose of the outrage is to scare the idiots like this brainless scum Schumer.That's all there is to it.

If you like the Russian so be it for America has very little interest in that corrupt society; you already cheered Hitler, Stalin, Brezhnev, Barosso...KGB Putin fits in too.

ypp

"What I suggest is to focus on one's personal survival, instead of saving the World from Evil Communists."

Without protection from the Evil Communist the individual cannot survive and never did; the death of millions prove it. The death is absolute; it kills the body and the spirit.Read more of Solzhenitsyn...may be he was off too according to your vision.

It's quite conceivable you are living in a different universe where different rules apply and where people are immune to all the ills around them. We are other type of mortals, some of us lived through the genocidal horrors of Communism.Like myself, prisoner #EA 2140.

Personally I think Central Eastern Europe has a potential to be a relevant partner for both Russia and West/USA without need to participate on the side of any of the main actors against another. (of course in case those parts of world will be able to recover)

Today Russia has not geopolitical power of the former Soviet Union. What we need is to realize that if we want, we can be strong enough to take care of ourselves....

We do not need protectors and certainly not those who will probably face such problems that they will have difficulties with themselves....

Hispanic America will certainly not give a damn about what is going on in Europe. Western Europe will be in best case irrelevant and in the worst case quite hostile. Russia will face probably similar problems like USA and WE, Somehow I have feeling that they could be more capable to overcome it than West, and if they do, I am sure it wont be nice.....

So, in the long term, if our political elites wont be too stupid (which I am afraid they are...), we could recover from the future mess in the best way. But if we want to, we should be much more pragmatic than today....

We should forget past grievances towards Russia and stop whining about how oppressed we were...We should base our partnerships on conveniance, not ideology of the past.

I think that as a people from still quite ethnically homogenic central and eastern European countries our situation is not so bad. But what we do not need is another cold war between two failing states, USA and Russia

After the second world war there was foolish opinion in Czechoslovakia, that our state could be a bridge between West and East, in case of one state it was certainly foolishness, but if we imagine alliance of the former eastern bloc countries plus Baltic states and Ukraine conscious of our own interests, we could be strong enough alone, without Russia, without USA, without anybody.....

In the best case we could be an equal partner for all, really huge cordon sanitaire:) by its sole existance maintaining the peace in Europe :), in the worst case, we could be a stronghold of European civilization and safe haven for refugees from less lucky neighbouring states in the West....

To sum it up, contrary to Afonso, I think we do not need any special guardian to alive, be it Russia, USA or anybody else, we just need to cooperate and build friendly relations with each other (specifically in the Balkan area it seems very difficult, relations between Slovakia and Hungary are also not too good), to solve our demographic problems and to do not let our politicians to do the same thing what did their colleagues in the West, all this is easy to say, but difficult to do and this is probably just dream which is not going to happen.

P.S.

By the way, with Balcan, Ukraine and Baltic state such "coalition" would have about 160 000 000 of people, I believe it could be enough to play independent role in Europe, we just need to want to....but of course, it is always more easy to transfer responsibility to somebody else....

P.P.S. Although my English is not quite good I hope it is good enough to be understandable...

Greetings to all new Eastern European posters; it's is very important that our voice be heard.

Your suggestion is commendable but cannot be put into realization. Think of it: not a single Central-Eastern European country has a well established and stable political system, history, even their nationhood is short lived.

Baltic nations: less than 20 years of independence, large subversive Russian minority.

Ukraine...uncertain present and future...

Hungary, Slovakia, Serbia, Czech Rep. Romania, Croatia are the result of the break up of the Austro-Hungarian monarchy in 1919. - mere 90 years. While the Czech Rep. and Poland are mature countries, the rest, including my native HU. are resembling to the honky-tonk, banana republic type countries with chaotic allegiances and political system.

"We should forget past grievances towards Russia and stop whining about how oppressed we were"

As long as they are still living victims of the Nazi persecution, the Fascist crimes against humanity are not forgiven.

Likewise, as long as the victims of the Soviet Gulags and Red Terror still living around us no one shall have the right to forgive or to forget: this right solely belongs to the victim's discretion.

All of this back and forth about us vs. them assumes that there is parity between the right or left, in terms of public perception. Not true. Conservatives tend to mind their own affairs and focus on building their families, wealth and health-- collectively this forms the basis of a healthy Western society. The liberals, propelled by a higher vision, manage to find the time and resources to manipulate mechanisms like government to produce the unattainable equal outcome they crave. The first group can attain a state of satisfaction and happiness while the second group is forever restless.

So these are very different types of mentalities. Liberals really have only their platform of idealism to promote and therefore they *must* function politically and judicially to survive. For conservatives it is more challenging to defend principles that thrive with less government, not more. Perhaps the overall rather anti-intellectual stance of Republicans has helped them maintain substantial power in America (neoconservatism being merely a bad coat of varnish) but we need to be better about expressing our foundational beliefs. The ten points of Russell Kirk are a good starting place.

As long as liberals succeed in convincing people they have a monopoly on caring and compassion, and that those on the right are focused solely on heartless greed, the Marxist dream will continue to unfold before our eyes.

"The proselytizers of the PC MC faith are the marxists and communists, everyone who then believes them, adopts them, and parrots their lines are just the sheeple"

This is a sorely inadequate explanation, for it depends upon the exceeding unlikelihood that the majority of conservatives throughout the West are "passive" "sheeple" who would just willingly swallow a major paradigm dished out to them by Leftists.

Nevertheless, the majority of conservatives throughout the West are believers in the PC MC axiom -- the axiom, namely, that Islam is a good religion to be "respected", and that the vast majority of Muslims are good decent "moms and pops like the rest of us", and that the only problem we face comes from a "tiny minority" of "extremists" who are trying to "twist" and "hijack" the great religion of peace Islam.

This phenomenon requires a more sophisticated explanation. On my blog The Hesperado I have made many comprehensive attempts at formulating an analytical explanation of this complex phenomenon that cannot be reduced to "Marxist" or "Leftist" culprits (even though they are among the Usual Suspects).

I have pondered this issue time and again... and I believe that when people realise the mess they are in, everybody is going to have a personal theory of how it came about.In many ways I agree with Fjordman, with regard to "cultural marxism," multiculturalism and political correctness. However non of these could be labelled "rootcause" of our selffunded colonialisation. In my oppinion cultural marxism and political correctness are not causes, in any real sense, they are expressions of the mindset which developed in western world in the sixties.But this mindset must be connected to something NEW. Something that wasn´t their before, but came along in the sixties and seventies, and changed things. Below II have compiled a list of cultural novums which shaped the people of western europe in the sixties.

1.THE PILL: This breakthrough in birthcontrol caused the demographic nakba of the western world and drastically reduced the number of families containing more than one male child. resulting in a lack of aggresive behaviour within society.

2.SUPPLY OF TOBACCO, HASHIS AND HEROIN (aka drug jihad): I personally consider the succesful drug-jihad of the seventies and sixties one of the much overlooked contributing factors.

TOBACCO: Female nicotine addiction during pregnancy with a male child is one of the main reasons for the massive reduction in male fertility... ever noticed the correspondence between tobacco plants and a certain religion?

HASHIS flooded western europe as an integral part of the drug jihad. Marocco, afghanistan, Iran all contributed in abundance. This brain damaging plant polluted the minds of the western european youth, in much the same way that alcohol trashed the native american and inuit culture. The jihadis did come up with this trick themselves (off course not) they learned it from the brits, who introduced opium, grown in afghanistan, to the chinese, with devastating consequences. I would like to emphasize how closely Hashis is connected with the feeling of intellectual superiority, marking the "engagement" of your european average-joe political hippie. drug-induced pride came before the fallHEROIN: for a jihadi a heroin-addiction is the neckshot of a potential enemy soldier. Also I find it important to raise attention to the fact, that drugjihad conquers through the mental illnes called hedonism. Our governments don´t realise the seriousness of this issue, and keep "treating" the problem instead of fighting it, in spite of afghani warlords bragging about their achievements. If they used all the money, they now waste on treatment in fighting supply, demand would be reduced to a minimum within a year or two.

3. REPLAYABLE POLITICAL-PROTEST IN THE FORM OF RYTHMICAL MUSIC. In my oppinion the accesability of records, moved political protest from the realm of debate, to the realm of feelings visavis hedonism. the goal of political activities was no longer the everyday well-being of your electorate. It was a feeling of being good. INmy oppinion the music might have been the single mot important factor in the betrayal commited by the socialdemocrats towards their own electorate. Actively destroying the hard earned benefits and neighborhoods of working-class people who voted for you by allowing mass-immigration in a time of massive unemployment. And on top of this... doing it in order to feel you are doing the right thing! This would not have happened, if the pacifistic, hedonistic hippies with all the good music hadn´t shown up at the party.

4. PHOTOGRAPHIC JOURNALISM. This technological achievement had a backfired during the vietnam war, and is to this day not properly realised. Reporting behind enemy lines is almost impossible during combat, which means that it is much easier to take pictures of the sufferings caused by the soldiers of your own nation. Leaving the atrocities of your enemy to the readers imagination. I am sure that many people would have changed their mind about the vietnam war, if all they ever saw was communist deportations, from the inside of a trainwagon stuffed with middleclass families. In other words anti-war Photographic jounalism sparked western oikophobia to every school kid of the western world, and gives an edge to the enemy of the free world, simply because free photographic press is in many counter-productive during wartime... which leaves the enemy with one less problem to fix, simply because he don´t have any free press. The people of the seventies didn´t truely realise that the worst of horrors never made it to the newsstand. And consequently the highly immoral political philosophy called "pacifism" gained ground in conjunction with hedonism...

This list could go on and on... changes in theories of child-raising, equality of the sexes, misunderstanding of the declaration of human rights, cheap flights... it never ends. Which off course makes one contemplate the one, root cause and eventhough I can´t prove it I would like to give my bet on it. In my oppinion the root cause is LACK OF SCARCITY. A whole generation of pacifistic hedonists cannot evolve in a nation where you have to be concerned about getting the daily bread. This answer contains some inherent irony, since it shows us that its the same thing that made us laugh, which are now making us cry. Through technology, western europe practically wiped out hunger and poverty, but it seems that this is exactly what also us us unattentive towards the threat towards our society. If there had been a vast amount of people struggling simply to get by, the negative consequences of muslim immigration simply hadn´t been tolerated. This is also obvious from the fact that the western european countries which are most damaged by muslim immigration are the very same, are also among the richest. (excluding nations with "bloody borders" off course)

I meant specially that Russia has been enemy of ours in the past doesn't mean it must be our enemy for ever...Fact is that in this region there is hardly any state who has not negative experiance with them.

On the other hand in too many cases we can blame just ourselves (or better our ancestors). And it was always about division. If I stay in the 20th century...

Czechoslovakia is a wonderful example, we had terrible relations with all of ours neighbours, with relative exception of Germany (before Hitler came to power) and Romania, with whom we shared common enemy, Hungary :)

After the 2nd World War, we were only one state in Europe who freely decided its incorporation to Eastern Bloc and we took Slovaks against their will, what is not too known is that contrary to the Czech lands, where communists gained 46 percents in free elections in 1946, in Slovakia voted more than 60% of people in favour of Democratic party, who were then politically crushed if I am not mistaken with nice help or at least silence from other noncommunistic parties.

Czech communists were perhaps even worse papist than pape himself in Soviet Union, nowhere in Central Europe has been destruction of private sector so complete like in Czechoslovakia and then in 1968, it was again mostly stupidity of our leaders to who we can thank for Soviet invasion....that is why I do not like specifically in Czech case when we are blaming Russians for everything...we did this to ourselves alone.....

And today, Czech social democrats are worse papists than those in Brussels :)

Presumably conservative party which rules today is planning to deliver "muscles" for our factories established here by preceding leftists governments and those leftists are warning before influx of immigrants who will "create ghettos, bring diseases" and so on :), for this they are attacked by our "right wing party" as lepenists and xenophobes :)), but still that doesnt prevent our socialists before beeing staunch supporters of Lisbon Treaty....

This is banana state Czech Republic :)

Well....I am sorry for such rambling about czech politics, but I could not help myself :) What I am really afraid of is that although people from eastern Europe are indeed different from those in the west simply because of different history, Czech republic could be quite soon the first adept who will copy western scenarios, I hope not.......

1st) I do am sorry for what happned to you. Communism is terrible. But, Communism is not to be blamed on the Russians. The Russians were one of the peoples who suffered the atrocities of the Union of the Socialist Sovietic Republic. Russia was a victim, let's please blame it all on the Jews... (I am kidding, but please, do not blame the Russians)

2nd) "we could be strong enough alone, without Russia, without USA, without anybody....."

I get perplex to hear an Eastern European saying this. Since when does Eastern European Nations are independent? Please, you more than us all must know how difficult and important it is to maintain a State for our Nation.

You cannot survive on your own. We are speaking of the erradication of a Civilisation. Bela and Martin seem to think that if Western Europe go to hell, they have a chance to survive. No you don't. That is ridiculous.

3rd) Russia is a world power. There is no world or European powers in Eastern Europe. That means that Eastern Europeans will not be able to help Western Europe if things get nasty.If Western Europe cease to exist as "European", you're only protector will be Russia, otherwise, you will cease to be European as well. You simply can not compete or help Western Europe. That's the whole importance of Russia.

Why don't you people search a good relation with Russia? Why don't you form a League against Communism with Russia?

Why the hell are you so afraid of her. Russia will never get her hands in traditional Eastern Europe. All she wants its her traditional lands and peoples:Belarus;Eastern and Southern Ukraine;Who knows? Even Kyev;And maybe the Baltic states of "litle importance, both Historically and today".

You have a simple question: You can chose between the European Union and Russia. Which is worst? In my eyes, it is the European Union.

I am really sorry for the advent of Communism but let's not blame the Russians for that! I'm looking to serious things in a close future that must be designed now, not tomorrow. The "advance" of Russia into her Traditional Territory in Far Eastern Europe is one of the things that must happen the faster the better.

I want to see a vibrant Budapest like that of today. With the only difference of an Hungarian future in front of it's Hungarian eyes.

To establish friendly relations with Poles we had little war for Csezsin/Těšín quite soon after establishment of Czechoslovakia in 1918....

So called "Seven day war" in 1919.....

And yes in 1938 was Czech part of Těšín invaded by Polish army.....

About Russia, problem is that there were conflicts with Russia in region centuries before communism...in The Middle Ages were Poles with Lithuania direct enemy of Russia and when Russian state (or better The Empire :) grown stronger, they participated on division of Poland with Austrian Empire and Prussians....

And Hungarians can commmemorate supression of Hungarian revolution of 1848 by Russian forces, due to the royal solidarity :) which has been later repaid by Austrian Emperor in not too good manner)

So it is not only about communism.....:)

About the first post....I think I have mixed some topics....

In case USA X Russia.... if it would be possible, I'd rather be neutral, in best case with other eastern European countries.....I have to admit that it is logical, that countries with such experiances will lean more towards USA.

If USA, Russia and Western Europe are doomed, then we will face the same fate quite soon, but I think it doesnt need to end in this way. For example WE may be damaged, facing civil wars and so on, but not doomed, then we can help....

Russia can face similar situation, then we can help too :) Or we can help Russia with islamized WE where could be still pockets of resistance.....I think there are many, many scenarios and I hope the worst one wont happen.

What I am looking forward is the next great depression, I think sooner it happens better are chances for Europe and USA to alive, because though situation in WE is really bad, I think it is still not irreversible...Same is for USA and Russia with its gas and oil....If we had stable economic growth for ever people, would stay blind until the end....If it continued for another 10 or 20 years, it could be too late. I think collaps is inevitable, because one day taxpayers wont be able to continue pay, but sooner it happens, better are our chances...

I just hope politicians in the USA will not be crazy enough to start war with Russia....

On personal note: My connection to Eastern Europe is purely cultural because of my birth, language and primary education, but I am a loyal American citizen, I have no split loyalty: I regard Russia as an enemy of the US and the EU is on its way to be the same.You have to understand that those people who left Europe in search of a new life cannot care less what Europe do or doesn't do, suck up to Russia and Islam or not: the EU is an independent body of 500 million people and very wealthy accordingly.The US and the EU have different destiny and path to follow.The US is not guilty of the EU self Islamisation, you created the problems, you voted for your scumbag leaders so please solve it alone.Sorry for the harsh language but it has became quite annoying the glorification of a country which mass murdered more of their own than Nazi Germany and the bashing of the US which destroyed the Berlin Wall.

I am of the opininion (but frankly I am not an author of this idea :), that the best thing what the West ever did for the end of communism in eastern part of Europe was its sole existence.

We owe lot of to president Reagan, who tried his best, same is for Margaret Thatcher. We can admire Truman, who was after Roosevelt in extremaly difficult situation and perhaps few more American presidents during the cold war, but on the other hand, there were people like Johnson and Bush, for whom was the best situation status quo and they really could not care less about what is going on in here....

Anyway I do not want to whine about how we were left by US to our own destiny :)

As I have said before specially in Czech case we can thank just to ourselves.

And one has to be frank and admit that eastern Europe was for USA just unimportant periphery, If we look at the map of the world, there are not many reasons why it should be otherwise.

Quite clearly I do not want Czech Republic becoming part of the Soviet or Russian Empire. On the other hand I know that our country is so small and unimportant, that if things go dire, we have no chances alone.

So for me the best solution would be a cooperation of neigbouring and regional countries of central and eastern Europe. Problem is that even if such project would be possible, it could take tens of years to make something like this functional and we probably do not have this time....There exists something like Visegrad four (CR, Hungary, Slovakia and Poland), which could be perhaps something like the first step, but even so, it is just the beginning.

I do not want to bash USA, but I think it is necessary to stop looking at the world with ideological glasses. It may sound cynical, but USA has own interests, western Europe has its own interests, we have our own, Russia too. I do not take for granted, that USA and EU will have same interests like my country for ever and Russia will be always the enemy number one....I am quite happy that West helped with downfall of Eastern bloc, although I am sure, we should not overestimate its role, it was more thing of an internal nature.

I have been "happy", when NATO helped to solve humanitarian crisis in Balkan, to punish those evil Serbs for their crimes against humanity. More than ten years later I am not so sure if there was anything like good Croats and Bosniaks and evil Serbs....When there was "humanitarian bombing" (I think invention of our fist president Václav Havel) of Serbia because of Kosovo, I have been happy atain , that those evil Serbian communists were crushed again and thus it was prevented genocide of poor Albanians....today I am not quite sure if anything like this ever happened and really do not know what is soo good on the fact that there is a new state called Kosovo....

Truth is that at the beginning of the Balcan mess, Western Europe has been begging for help from US, because ability of EU to solve anything is quite near to nill...

Now it may sound like America bashing, but it seems that Bush just desperately needed a muslim nation who will love USA.... (of course there could be other reasons, but those are just even worse)

So to sum it up, it is increasingly difficult to search common interests with USA. I hope it will get better after next presidential elections, but I am not too optimistic, I am afraid it is too easy to renew animosity towards Russia, because lets be frank, it is sooo politically correct enemy, that almost all Americans (with exception of those club of self haters like Daily Kos:) can unite and "cheer"....

P.S.

Of course I hope USA will never be our enemy, but there are hardly things about which we can say that can never happen.

I think that more probable is that you will have your own very serious difficulties which can lead even to Hispanic States of America and again, I can hardly imagine, such state would have any interest in Europe.

On the other hand, some time before I have read an article from American "intelectual" who thought that one day will be necessary to help save those poor muslims in Europe from oppresion of evil Europeans...so who knows :)

George Friedman of Stratfor. Excellent weekly articles. The five last ones are all absolutely essential reading on the Russo-Georgian war. Read them all! (Notice how the first one was written even before the war started!)

I'm now leaving this forum. There's no longer any "we". There are too many David Duke supporters here. And people are divided to the death over Russia. Just to mention two things.

And I have lived under the impression that I had an audience here among whom I have forwarded the understanding about the nature of our civilization, about its all-encompassing cultural leftism, which goes far far beyond Marxism, and include all kinds of internationalisms. About the role of America (cherche la gun), Christianity. About my principle that the only way to act morally for a nation is to act in its self-interest, and how acting out of altruism/vanity is deeply immoral and destructive. Etc.

But I can see clearly now that I am like the hand splashing around in a bowl of water. As soon as the hand is lifted up, the water goes back to the way it was before. What I write has no lasting effect on people. People might say "good point" just after reading it, but they will have forgotten it already the next day. And fear and hate are much stronger drivers than thinking among people. So I fail to see much point in continuing.

Surely I have left some fragments behind me that stay within some people. My dialogs with Baron Bodissey (most of which has taken place by email) have been particularly inspiring. And in spite of the disappointment I express about this forum, I'm not at all disappointed with the Baron.

So I will stop splashing and withdraw my hand out of the water. There will be some people expressing their unhappiness about this, but in just a week or two you won't notice the difference. You might not forget me, but in less than a month you will have forgotten my ideas, the shadow theater on the wall of the Platonic cave leaves a so much stronger impression.

"What I am looking forward is the next great depression, I think sooner it happens better are chances for Europe and USA to alive"

That great depression will be avioded. It will happen, but it will only happen when Europe and the U.S.A. are in such a bad shape that they cannot avoid it. What I mean is that that New Great Depression will be simultaneous with the new "darkie ages" if you know what I mean. That will not happen before 2012.

-----------------------------------

Bela, I understand your "American Patriotism" but...First of all, I think that patriotism whith out Nationalism cannot go far;Second, I do not believe Europe and America have such distinct futures, I doubt it really. Have you read Samuel Hantington's book "The Clash of Civilisations"?And third, you fail to see that this is not a "European problem", it is a CIVILISATIONAL problem and it strikes:1) Western Europe2) North America3) Eastern Europe4) Russia5) Australia & New Zeeland6) Southern South America (Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay, Chile)

It is a civilisational thread and what was not striked yet, will be in a very near future. It started with descolinisation against "European Civilisation" in Africa and Asia. The more telling case is the South African one. Nowadays there is a battle going on in "Non-white America" against "European Civilisation". The main battle field today is Colombia, tomorrow it will be Cuba. In this America, Europeans have already became a tiny privileged minority that is way away from the poor people. This "elite" maintains European Civilisation as it can but the balance is very dependent on external fctors. The best example is Mexico. That's also why Mexico is a "half Western" country. Compare that to hell wholes like Haiti or Guatemala.

Our problems are the same and we are fighting the same battle. It is a Civilisational problem. As Aragorn says in the classic of Tolkien, "The Lord of the Rings":

"War has came upon, you whether you like it or not."

And yes, I prefer Aragorn to the Elf. He's familiar.

----------------------------

Martin,

"Quite clearly I do not want Czech Republic becoming part of the Soviet or Russian Empire. On the other hand I know that our country is so small and unimportant, that if things go dire, we have no chances alone."

Exactly, I do not want to see Russia marching over Eastern Europe. I just say: give to her what belongs to her and manage to have good relations with her. Friendly relations with her.Damn it! How I miss the XIX century! Those times of Pan-Slavism when Russia presented itself as the defender of the Slavic peoples against Germanic and evil Turkic forces! I want to see Central-East and Balkanic Europe preserved but, what did the "Belarussian" and "Ukrainian" Nations gave to man kind? Nothing. Those are Russia's lands (mainly).

Do keep in mind that Russia has traditionally been the only Eastern European Slavic Nation to (merely) exist Historically and Traditionally as such.

"the best solution would be a cooperation of neigbouring and regional countries (...). Problem is that even if such project would be possible, it could take tens of years to make something like this functional"

Of course! That's all I'm asking for. You take "tens" of years, the result will be to strengthen your Nations. In the European Union, those same "tens" of years will be for the destruction of your Nations. However I've noticed that Eastern Europeans are in (UE) Europe for the money and not because it is fashionable and "good" as in the West. At least the mainstream right.

Your statement sounds like a code language: "I just say: give to her what belongs to her and manage to have good relations with her."

Please delineate as to which independent country should be "given" to her (annexed/ruled)? Do you care what those countries citizenry really want or it's completely immaterial for you?

Anti-Americanism: It started with De Gaulle and I remember when Western Marxist protested against the USA while the Russians shot to death civilians at the Berlin Wall.With the collapse of economical communism (Cultural Marxism is going strong) the acrimony only growing between the EU and US. Even the once staunch anti-Communist country like Hungary - my country of birth - is now pushing the Anti-American agenda: both the Nazis and the Communist and those in between sucking up to the Russians. But they hate the EU equally: you are correct - I am glad I am out of HU. for good, she is an other type of cesspool to be far away from.

As for America, she has her own set of problems which are beyond the scope of this forum to be brought up: they are great many forums available for that subject.

"delineate as to which independent country should be "given" to her (annexed/ruled)? Do you care what those countries citizenry really want or..."

You see, you have just caught the correlation.

"or it's completely immaterial for you?"

No, it's not. But neither is it the supreme factor. I am all for self-determination. But not a ridiculous self-determination that legitimates Kosvos. I am not Diamed.

I think it's easy. It's traditional Russian territory: Eastern and Southern Ukraine, Belarus. The Baltic States and Transnistra are debatable.

You haven't seen Russia wanting to march over Budapest, Prague, Warsow or Bucharest, did you? I mean, after 1989... No, at least not without serious provocations.

I want a strong power, not an imperialist power. See, like, chosing Putin over Saakashvili...

I want a strong power in order to help us if the ocasion asks for it. And my faith in America is vanashing... remember Serbia? remember Georgia? And America will have huge problems to solve on her own. She has already.

-----------------------------------

Conservative Swede, you funny guy, always making fun of us!

You are kidding over your departure, are you not?

I know (hope) you are. You cannot do that to Gates of Vienna.You are a "Premium Commenter" here and your departure will be a severe blow on Gates of Vienna. You wouldn't do that, would you...

Remember: If you let little pockets of freedom like Gates of Vienna to be "taken", there you are killing the West too. Think about it and re-think your departure. I think you meant that you will simply reduce the quantity of your participation. Yes, it must be that because you would not strike the quality of Gates of Vienna by taking away one of our brightest commenters (whith whom I disagree in many things).

" You might not forget me, but in less than a month you will have forgotten my ideas, the shadow theater on the wall of the Platonic cave leaves a so much stronger impression."

But Mr Swede, the shadow theatre is Nietzsche's hermeneutic and epistemology put in but a few words,

Beyond Good and Evil Aphorism 4: The falseness of an opinion is not for us any objection to it: it is here, perhaps, that our new language sounds most strangely.The question is, how far an opinion is life-furthering, life-preserving, species-preserving, perhaps species-rearing, and we are fundamentally inclined to maintain that the falsest opinions (to which the synthetic judgments a priori belong), are the most indispensable to us, that without a recognition of logical fictions, without a comparison of reality with the purely IMAGINED world of the absolute and immutable, without a constant counterfeiting of the world by means of numbers, man could not live--that the renunciation of false opinions would be a renunciation of life, a negation of life. TO RECOGNISE UNTRUTH AS A CONDITION OF LIFE; that is certainly to impugn the traditional ideas of value in a dangerous manner, and a philosophy which ventures to do so, has thereby alone placed itself beyond good and evil.

I, for one, will not mourn your passing, nor will I forget your suggestion that "Christians" be put in camps and "re-educated".

You live much longer then you think you do and you will have time to see it through to the end, but even hell is a mercy compared to the naïve desire for total nothingness that you predicate your pseudo-ethics on.

Whiskey - an interesting comment about the fear of competition! This might be the reason for the gradual lowering of the educational standards as well. A friend's daughter (an exceptionally talented and smart girl) didn't pass her Oxford interview because they were asking a lot of questions that she didn't study in her average middle class school. The kids who go to expensive elite schools study the kinds of subjects and topics that they will be examined on during the admissions to elite universities.

your link to that Romanian site is very interesting and thank you for that; it's a clear rebuttal to our poster named "ypp" who appears to be a philosophical shill for the Communists:

"What I suggest is to focus on one's personal survival, instead of saving the World from Evil Communists."

The human spirit and soul will not survive in the midst of totalitarian nihilism by ignoring or quietly acquiescing to it out of sheer expediency.When Nietzsche's God died and humans morphed into God, genocide ensued and humanity became self-destruct.

Bela: I for once agree with you over there. But unfotunately you seem incapable to realise that it is the same in relation with Nations: We here in Portugal had already tried under the moto "Lonely but Proud", it did not work too well.

"You live much longer then you think you do and you will have time to see it through to the end, but even hell is a mercy compared to the naïve desire for total nothingness that you predicate your pseudo-ethics on."

You are being way too unfair. I've never heard Con Swede claiming that there's no transcendent, claiming that there is only nihilism and nothingness.

I do believe that one of the strenghts of America is Christianity. Not Christianity proper, but the American mindset believes in transcendental set of believes. That is an advantage in relation to European nihilism. But, do you know who gets all the advantage on this field?

Yes, our dear friends, the islamic muslims. American believing is nothing compared to the islamic believing. Only the act of believe provides strenght, it does not matter in what you believe, what matters is that you believe.

But another thing matters. The believe in Mohamad is stronger than the believe in Christ due to its authoritarianism. Islamism means submission. Christianity does not.But Christianity does not mean freedom either.

There's where Conservative Swede stands out. He believes in freedom per se, and more, he believes in freedom and a moral code, a set of ethic vallues. He proposes Paganism. But he does not claim that everything Christian is bad. He told countless times that Jesus was a great boy and that it is the Jeovah you must battle. That is all he wants: To break the slave mentality that Christianity is.

Try to read this and its part 2. That's for starters. And please, leave that Christian arrogance outside.

Christianity actively prays on Europe, it actively supports the destruction of European Civilisation. What I mean is, Europe is not Christianity. Christianity is just a small part of Europe.

Try to see Zeit Geist for a more encopassing understandment of Christianity.

In the end, there are only two kinds of people: Those who seek the truth regardless of what suits them and those who seek what suits them despite the truth.Sometimes, I do think that the only vallue of Christianity cames from being the only institution of the Roman Empire to have survived. All the rest seems to be a consequence of that little light of Civilisation in a world of Barbarism. Nowadays, in a more "Civilised World", so Civilised into Political Correctness and multiculturalism, Christianity is not mandatory any more. The Romans did not need Christianity, nor do their descendents when they get to their level.

That's Con Swede theory. I've never saw him defending nihilism as you allege.

-----------------------------

But a little more. Let's go deeper:Islam may be the cult of death. But, if it is so, then Christianity is the cult of fear: Fear of death, fear of going to well, fear...

Conservative Swede proposes a set of vallues in which we (the society) do not have to live based on fear.

In the words of Eça de Queiroz, back from the XIX century: What distinguishes a good Portuguese gentleman is that he must not act according to the fear propelled by his religion but for what is right. You have to stand for what's right. It must come from within. That is Nobility, that is "sangue azul" (blue blood). You must not be conditioned by outside interferences because God lives in you. (I am not quoting this)

It is this "pagan" ethics - that you must act rightly due to yourself, that that is your vallue, that you do not have to live conditioned by fear or other exogenous factors - that gives real vallue to individuals.

I suspect that one of the reasons that the socialist left have been so pro "multiculturalism" and mass immigration is that they have been disappointed by the unwillingness or inability of the "proles" to acknowledge their utopian ideals. Instead the socialist left have been pushing for high immigration as a way of building a new proletariat - and in the case of Muslim immigrants, a weaponised proletariat. Immigrants to them represent a truly oppressed class that can be used as a foundation for "revolution".

I support your observation wholeheartedly: I spent 50 years under forced Marxist indoctrination behind the Iron Curtain so I know by heart all the speeches that were spout off at the Soviet Union XX. Congress and similar gatherings.

The new substitute to proletariat - (which moved to china during globalization)- is people of color!-the emphasis is on the color: they supply the progressive masses and the rich white millionaires are their leaders.For them the destruction of the Western world means a forever hold on the loot they amassed by force by robbing others.

And in general, identical or similar premises will lead to identical or similar conclusions, evaluations and decisions -- simply because of the way the human mind works.

But we discuss topics like the ones raised in this thread in terms of ideology, religion, politics, events, institutions and the like, which are actually philosophy's children, or perhaps the implementation of philosophy in day-to-day life.

I believe that much can be explained by looking at the underlying philosophical premises of the various influences and people that are being discussed here.

For example, collectivism. At the risk of stating the obvious, collectivism as a philosophical doctrine is the idea that human life is to be understood in terms of groups, that the individual derives his meaning and value from the collective of which he is a member, and that the interests of the collective always come before the interests of the individual.

This notion is held in common by the left in general, by racists, communists, socialists, fascists and nazis, as well as by mohammedans with their notion of the ummah and their ridiculous division of the world into the House of Wax and the House of Pancakes. (And by other ideologies as well).

So on questions of individual rights and freedoms, all those groups are all apt to come up with similar answers. Whether they deliberately make common cause or simply do what comes naturally, they will always tend in the same direction and find themselves agreeing on some level.

The same is true about basic questions about truth, ethics, methods of thought, the nature of the real world and so on and so forth.

The question of whether or not there is an absolute truth and if so how is it determined is a BIG one in this area. Ironically the "post-modernists" and the mohammedan purists share a common contempt for the methods of science and the operations of human logic, and share the idea that those can never bring one to an absolute grasp of truth. In fact, all the schools of thought today that spring from Emanuel Kant share this notion -- deriving from Kant's notion of the phenoumenal vs the noumenal, and the impotence of the human mind to percieve true reality directly.

So whether a child goes to a madrassa or to a western school dominated by "post-modernists" he will get the same idea that the human mind is inadequate to perceive the truth clearly and directly. And the end product of this process will be a mind robbed of the intellectual self-confidence to assert its own independent understanding of the world.

The list of commonally held toxic ideas goes on.

In general, it seems to me that the ideas we are fighting against today have been with us for a long time. Indeed they are the very ideas that lead to the rise of nazism and communism and the long campaigns of murder before, during and after WWII.

Those ideas were held by the intelligencia and the academics then, and passed on to successive generations of intelligencia and the academics since. They have never gone out of popularity among those classes. If anything, they are at least as strong today and dressed up in a less scary sounding vocabulary, albeit with the same toxic power.

The problem here is that the primary battlefied will be in the schools. The fight will take a generation or two to complete under the BEST of lucky circumstances.

Regarding the current war of ideas, and it is a war of ideas, I am not sure what to say in the context of this thread.

I have been noticing that we have been making some very small progress here in the US by very forcefully and insistently asserting what the main body of the citizenship understands as common sense -- common sense being the equivalent in ordinary discourse of formal philosophical truth.

It's a struggle, and those that go before the public with pronouncements like "words have meanings" and "ideas have consequences" and "there's no free lunch" are widely ridiculed by the intelligencia and the cultural glitterati, but their words resonate with the public and move the popular discourse onto more fertile ground.

We have also had some success in appealing to the ordinary citizens' sense of common decency and acceptable morality in criticising the immoral excesses of the mohammedans -- "honor" killings, female genital mutilation, the whole disgusting terrorism thing etc.

Anonymous Infidel asked here:"I want everyone's opinion on this: How in God's name are we supposed to awake the indigenous populations of Europe that: 1:They are being betrayed by the EU and a good number of their leaders. 2:That they are are in very real danger of dying as nations."

I think for most people in Europe, a dry udder and an economic collapse will do some good to changing their march down the drain. They are too brainwashed and dependent on Government hand-outs to wake up before that. For the rest it is blogs like these that help wake up and/or encourage the few that are not indoctrinated to the bone yet.

An essential effect of this independent medium is that both the left and the Islamists know they are being watched and exposed but can't easily silence it (if it is not an European blog). They will therefore more and more be pushed into defence, losing their masks and showing their real ugly faces to all.

But to be honest, I totally gave up on the lot in the Socialist multiple choice (left or islamist) kingdom of the Netherlands in particular. Only Flanders, Denmark and some southern German provinces in that area have a chance for survival.

That partly is why the EU will never let Flanders become independent. They know too well once that ball rolls, the wole thing will fall apart.

CzC: "I watched 300 on friday. It was a fictional movie but we need some of the Spartan attitude.We stand together or we die alone."

The 300 Spartans decided to stand together and as a consequence they died together. They would have been smarter to make a deal with the Persians. After all, a little dhimmitude doesn't hurt. The key word is FLEXIBILITY.

Yeah, yeah limpet, you should be ashamed of yourself. I'll just believe that you did not study History very well.

The Spatans did died, a small price. But, if it weren't for the Spartans, the Persians had conquered all Greece. They sacrificed themselves for Greece.

They could not be smarter, they could have not been *better*.

But maybe, that's something you don't understand? To make sacrifices for something superior to yourself, it apears that your ego is too big, isn't it not? Maybe you don't understand that cowardice will never buy freedom?

Our greatest problem in the West is that there are too many Limpets who have forget what their ancestors knew:

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed fromtime to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants."Thomas Jefferson

"For example, collectivism. At the risk of stating the obvious, collectivism as a philosophical doctrine is the idea that human life is to be understood in terms of groups, that the individual derives his meaning and value from the collective of which he is a member, and that the interests of the collective always come before the interests of the individual.

This notion is held in common by the left in general, by racists, communists, socialists, fascists and nazis, as well as by mohammedans with their notion of the ummah and their ridiculous division of the world into the House of Wax and the House of Pancakes. (And by other ideologies as well)."

There are many types of collectivism. I believe I can even say that there exists a continuum from radical individualism all the way to Communism. Everything is a "type" of collectivism.

So, in this light, collectivism is not good or bad, it just exists. What we have to find is the right strain of Collectivism. For myself, I think the better strain of collectivism, is one that alouds the freedom and realisation of the individual, while putting the individual interests always, but always, after those of the group. Not obstanding, the system had to be a meritocracy and as such, some individuals would have to stand out from the crowd. In the end, some individual interests would shape the society. Some individual interests would come before the "interests" of the group. That is a contradiction.

But that is in relation to what you then said. Because the truth is something diffcult to attend and some individuals are closer to the truth than the masses.

That society, with so complicated relations is an Aristocratic society. But, since I want a meritocracy too, I can not have a "closed Aristocracy". So, how can we concile a mobile Aristocracy with an Aritocratic Meritocracy? That's what we have to come up to.

America is an Aristocratic Meritocracy, but in America, Aristocracy means money, I want a return to true Aristocratic vallues, not money.

Good morning all. As an American observer I would suggest that the only way to counter a Jihad is with a Crusade, but alas, the Church is weak. There seem to be three options: 1) find a new Francisco Franco, 2) find a new Adolf Hitler, or 3) become Marxist Al-Andalus.There is no fourth option of "individual freedom." That was just a ruse used by Marxists to seize power from the Church and the Monarchs.

darrin,Apparently you missed some history lessons: The ascendancy of Hitler and Fascism was a reflexive response tho the spread of Communism. After Russia's takeover by the Bolsheviks, they moved to Hungary and founded the second Marxist government. Weimar Republic of Germany faced the same fate so did Spain.

Europe's choice was limited to the two evil and it is safe to say both form of Socialism is pernicious to the mankind. I prefer none them.

I'm trying to describe what's happening with me right now. I expect that I'm going for a long break. But I will be back at some point in some shape. There's still quite a lot to be said, but the platform and the premises that I thought I was speaking from has been blown away. So after some recreation I will have to start from a new position, as something of a Western Solzhenitsyn.

Furthermore, I'm tired of speaking to the wind. Someone I gotten more and more interested in recently is Erich. He appears to be basing his opinions in his thinking (rather than identity, political theater, emotions etc). He doesn't seem to be easily convinced, but he appears to be the kind with whom a point sticks after it has been driven home. I'm tired of people who get a point just a little. Either a point is accepted or not. And if it's accepted it has to be internalized into your thinking. I'm tired of speaking to the wind.

Thanks Afonso for standing up as my interpreter. However, my ideas are based on logic and not on identity. So I do not have any special affiliation to Paganism. I'm a pragmatist, not an idealist. The Russian Orthodox Church looks like a better model to me in any foreseeable future.

Another person that impress me, and always did, is Queen. She does not build systems of her thoughts like me and Erich, but her thoughts are always crystal clear and never corrupted. She cuts through BS like a sharp knife. My overall point here is inspired by her:

* Russia is the only white country that does not wage war against its own people (as the Western countries are fiercely doing), but act in the interest of its own people. This is the only really important point, all the rest is secondary noise in comparison.

* We should notice that this does not take place under some phony post-modern über-ideological label such as "white nationalism". Instead it's an old-fashioned (multi-ethnic) empire. Unlike ideological fantasies, a real well-tried concept. Russia is the only empire not torn apart by Western liberals in the American Age. However, I hope to see the Germans back on track before the end of this century.

* I fail to see how people who are lamenting the suicidal liberal rule of the West at the same time are attacking the only power that is seriously challenging it, i.e. Russia. I cannot take these people seriously.

* The point about how the problem of the West is not Marxism but much wider is not just an esoteric philosophical point. People using the wrong concepts will end up doing the wrong analysis. Most of the time not as crude as Defiant Lion when he thought that Marxism flooded into the West from the East after the fall of the iron curtain, but in essence not so different. McCain says that when he looks into the eyes of Putin he sees KGB. But McCain also thinks that America is about to put anti-missile systems in "Czechoslovakia". McCain is truly living in the past. And anyone who think that Marxism is the problem with the West is prone to end up on the side of McCain, that is with the most developed form of of the über-ideology that is committing genocide on white people. They are bound to get the whole thing completely backwards.

* So Putin was in the KGB. Well Russia used to be a Soviet system. A lot of people were part of that. The system is gone, but the people are still there. According to American liberalism a bad system should not only fall, but all people who was part of it must be purged from the new system. Nazis in Germany. Baathists in Iraq. This is a ideological fantasy and a way of crippling a nation. However, based on this über-ideological purity code, Russia and China will always be seen as Marxist. And resurgent Germany will be seen a Nazist (not based on the people who are long gone, but because there is a special standard for Germans).

Once again, for thinking people, I recommend reading Srdja Trifkovic and Gerge Friedman (not because they agree or I agree with them in every point, but because they are thinking.)

Finally something about the world view of Bela. There might be an agreement in words of wanting to see the EU fall. But in the case of Bela he means literally that he wants the people of Western Europe "submerge into the sewer of her own making", something he will enjoy watching while eating popcorn. Bela sees the world through fairy-take logic. Then there a stereotypic categories for all people: the heroes, the villains, and the innocent victims. In the case of Eastern Europe under the Communist empire the Eastern Europeans were "innocent victims" (the example of Martin counters this stereotype, but nevermind that). In the case of Western Europeans under the EU, the people themselves are "villains" and in the eyes of Bela deserve to perish. Keep this in mind when agreeing with Bela.

It's symptomatic how the influence of American hegemony (the giant elephant in the room) is completely gone from Fjordman's (and Bawer's) analysis in the 4th and 5th paragraphs in the article above. "America’s ascent to the rank of Great Power" is mentioned, but supposedly it had no major influence on the events of Europe at all. In line with that it is described as "complex" how Sweden is worse off than Poland.

I cannot but help thinking of the days of Copernicus. When the sun was not put at the center of the planetary system all movements had to be described as very complex. It's the same here. Put the sun, i.e. American hegemony, back at the center of the system, and suddenly things are not so "complex" anymore. Western Europe has deteriorated much further because it has been under American hegemony much longer. But the same process in underway in Eastern Europe too now, for the very same reason.

Multiculturalism and its special form of political correctness comes from America. This is easily proven.

From an identity aspect it's much more emotionally satisfactory to frame the problem as the EU and Marxism, rather than NATO and American liberalism/internationalism. Surely the local sheriff will be from the EU and probably something of a Marxist, but cherche le gun! All power is ultimately based on military power. Who set the agenda, the stage in which the little sheriffs are running around? Easier and more emotionally satisfactory to put the blame on the local sheriff who is directly oppressing you. Very hard emotionally to realize that it's the big guy with the big gun who is ultimately responsible. It makes the ground disappear from under ones feet. Who then to put trust in? We saw the same phenomenon in Tsarist and Soviet Russia when then people maintained their trust in the "little father".

Take away the EU and nothing will change, because EU does not hold any real power. The power sits with NATO. To better understand the nature of NATO I recommend the following article by George Friedman: Georgia and Kosovo: A Single Intertwined Crisis

Israeli Strategy After the Russo-Georgian War, by George Friedman:"More interesting, perhaps, was the decision, publicly announced by the Israelis, to end weapons sales to Georgia the week before the Georgians attacked South Ossetia. Clearly the Israelis knew what was coming and wanted no part of it. Afterward, unlike the Americans, the Israelis did everything they could to placate the Russians, including having Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert travel to Moscow to offer reassurances. Whatever the Israelis were doing in Georgia, they did not want a confrontation with the Russians."

Anyway, I'm out of here. Apart from being tired of talking to the wind, I'm not prepared to take that deranged hate that I meet for making proper analyzes. I will let people go through their Linda Blair style fits in confrontation with reality and not let them spurt it over me. I do not like this sort of "reward" for seeing things in advance, and reality is about to catch up with people rather soon anyway, and the Soros kid O'Cain McBama will definitely help catalyzing the process.

The debate is over, as Al Gore would have put it. Time for the likes of Putin (I'm keeping an eye on Berlusconi too).

"From Solzhenitsyn’s point of view, Western capitalism and liberalism are in their own way as horrible as Stalinism. Adam Smith saw man as primarily pursuing economic ends. Economic man seeks to maximize his wealth. Solzhenitsyn tried to make the case that this is the most pointless life conceivable. He was not objecting to either property or wealth, but to the idea that the pursuit of wealth is the primary purpose of a human being, and that the purpose of society is to free humans to this end.

...

He viewed freedom of expression in the same way. For Americans, the right to express oneself transcends the content of the expression. That you speak matters more than what you say. To Solzhenitsyn, the same principle that turned humans into obsessive pursuers of wealth turned them into vapid purveyors of shallow ideas. Materialism led to individualism, and individualism led to a culture devoid of spirit. The freedom of the West, according to Solzhenitsyn, produced a horrifying culture of intellectual self-indulgence, licentiousness and spiritual poverty. In a contemporary context, the hedge fund coupled with The Daily Show constituted the bankruptcy of the West.

Solzhenitsyn could not teach Americans, whose intellectual genes were incompatible with his. But it is hard to think of anyone who spoke to the Russian soul as deeply as he did. He first ripped Russia apart with his indictment. He was later ignored by a Russia out of control under former President Boris Yeltsin. But today’s Russia is very slowly moving in the direction that Solzhenitsyn wanted. And that could make Russia extraordinarily powerful. Imagine a Soviet Union not ruled by thugs and incompetents. Imagine Russia ruled by people resembling Solzhenitsyn’s vision of a decent man.

Solzhenitsyn was far more prophetic about the future of the Soviet Union than almost all of the Ph.D.s in Russian studies. Entertain the possibility that the rest of Solzhenitsyn’s vision will come to pass. It is an idea that ought to cause the world to be very thoughtful."

You said "There are many types of collectivism. I believe I can even say that there exists a continuum from radical individualism all the way to Communism. Everything is a "type" of collectivism."

Actually I can't agree. Individualism is not a type of collectivism. Individualism is the idea that the source and measure of value in human life is the individual. According to individualism the collective is to be evaluated by its value to the individual.

Collectivism evaluates ethical questions in exactly the opposite way. The collective is considered the source of value, and the individual is to be evaluated by his value to the collective.

These are very distinct doctrines.

I will grant you that there are many varieties of collectivism. But they all share the same fundamental ethical standard with regard to the individual and his relation to the collective.

I assert that collectivism in ALL of its forms is a bad and toxic doctrine, hostile to human interests. And we see clearly, as we look at the societies of the world, that the more collectivist a society is, the more dangerous it is to the health and welfare of the individual. I will cite communist China, with its death toll of about 70 millions as a prime example.

The society you say you would like to see:

"...I think the better strain of collectivism, is one that alouds the freedom and realisation of the individual, while putting the individual interests always, but always, after those of the group..."

That is simply a situation where the collective allows some freedom, in order to milk the productivity and talent of the better individuals so to speak. It is a common form of collectivist gov't today. The collectivists realize that the wealth has to come from somewhere, and that the collective itself cannot produce it, only the individual can. So they allow a longer leash for the productive individual. Sort of like fattening a lamb or keeping a milk cow, in my view.

As an American I reject that approach to life.

I have an issue with the idea of "Meritocracy". That suffix "ocracy" implies rule, dictatorial control. A meritocracy would be a dictatorship by those who have "merit". I cannot endorse that. I believe in freedom and the rights of man. Period.

Meritocracy is more or less the old Platonic ideal of rule by the priest-kings, which has been proven inhumane and unworkable countless times. The idea is still popular, but also still impractical and ultimately cruel.

That said, I think it is inappropriate to dismiss America on the basis of our popular TV culture, or as you put it "the hedge fund coupled with The Daily Show". Our country is only 200 years old and still finding its way from a cultural and artistic standpoint. There is PLENTY going on here that you are not likely to know about from the outside.

What is more, what one sees in our popular culture is what ordinary people like and are willing to spend their money on. Their tastes are assiduously studied by people who specialize in doing just that, and whose livelihood depends on being right in their judgement of what is likely to be popular.

Elvis is more popular than Bach. Life is tough.

Having been in a couple of towns in Europe I have not gotten the impression that the ordinary British, French or Spanish (or their European tourist guests) have particularly more sensitive or subtle tastes or habits than their American cousins.

I do take issue with one particular turn of phrase you use "that the purpose of society is to free humans to this end" (refering to the pursuit of wealth). If you want to discuss the American philosophy of life, something which few people in the world, even Americans, understand, you should at least get our formulation right.

Our founding documents state that all men "are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights" -- which is to say that our rights and our freedom are inherent in our humanity, in the natural human condition.

And they go on to say that "to secure these rights governments are instituted among men". Which is to say that the function of government is to protect our proper natural condition and make it secure.

This is a far cry from saying that we have been "freed" to serve some end, like hunting dogs.

That the majority of ordinary men enjoy their freedom by pursuing wealth may be distasteful to some, but it is their right. And our culture is by no means devoid of spirit, it is devoid of expressions of spirit that foreigners find agreeable. And that is fine by us. We're here for our own sake, not somebody else's.

If Mr. Solzhenitsyn actually believed (which I find hard to credit) that "Western capitalism and liberalism are in their own way as horrible as Stalinism" he got that one wrong.

But you are absolutely right that "For Americans, the right to express oneself transcends the content of the expression.". It does.

That the tree of freedom bears sweet, bitter and stinking tasteless fruit may be puzzling to people born elsewhere, but that tree is sacred to us.

We have fought wars for that, and are now engaged in another for the same reason.

The example of Turkey shows that it is quite possible to be a member of NATO and yet remain unaffected by political correctness and multiculturalism. Concerning Russia, I save my enthusiasm for the day when the Russian fertility rate has increased to the same level as of white Americans and Scandinavians.

You are something of a joker, aren't you? So let's do things the Pasta-way and admit Turkey into the EU, as a way to wash away EU's reputation as politically correct and multicultural, funny guy.

While I would see this as the ultimate proof of the EU's PC multiculturalism, Pasta instead would see it as a proof that one does not need to be PC/MC to be in the EU. Pasta would hold up this as a shining example to oppose anyone describing the EU as PC/MC. Good luck with the Turks, Pasta! Funny guy.

Regarding fertility rates: Going up steadily in Russia, has gone up from 1.25 to 1.40 during the Putin years.

either you are trying to distract from your defeat or you don't even understand your own theory. You blamed PC/MC explicitly on American hegemony and NATO, and not on the EU. Turkey clearly disproves your theory, as it joined NATO in 1952 and pursued an ultra-nationalist policy ever since, with only a slight moderation recently - because it wants to join EU and the EU made it a precondition for membership.

Regarding fertility rates: Going up steadily in Russia, has gone up from 1.25 to 1.40 during the Putin years.

Yes, I know that. Still miles away even from the (below replacement level) fertility rates of white Americans and Scandinavians. Nine years after Putin's rise to power there is no evidence that authoritarianism is better for fertility than democracy. You view Russia (and China, too) through rose-tinted glasses.

First of all. If one has a fertility rate of 1.25 the only thing one can do about it is to increase it. And this is what Russia is doing, and it's steadily increasing. This is the best case scenario. You live in a fantasy world if you think that any magical tricks could be performed.

You view Russia (and China, too) through rose-tinted glasses.

I get to hear the same junk from leftists whenever I defend America from deranged accusations. You are of the same mindset as them. People are driven by extreme ideologized mythology. When you present some sober reality check, it makes them go crazy and accuse you of "rose-tinted glasses", of being fanatically pro-American, pro-Russian, etc.

Reality check is that unlike the West, Russia and China do not wage war against their own people. What's rose-tinted with pointing out that?

Regarding the EU and NATO, EU is not anchored on firm ground itself. It does not have any means (in terms of military) to exercise any power by itself, it rest entirely on the shoulders of NATO. This means that if NATO is dissolved, that the EU will collapse too. However, if EU is breaking up, not much will change, unless it is the first step towards a disintegration of NATO. We can complain about the PC/MC of the EU until the cows come home, but if we do not realize that NATO is the fundamental problem, then we are not about to get anywhere.

Finally, regarding your idea of how Turkey freely pursuing their ultra-nationalist policy within the NATO, is a guarantee for NATO not being PC/MC, is probably the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard. PC/MC is exactly about "white" people submitting to the ultra-nationalism of "brown" people. We see it also e.g. in how America let Mexican ultra-nationalism being pursued withing their country. And you will have it your way soon with Turkey within the EU.

I don't see why increasing the fertility rate much more than just from 1.25 to 1.4 within 9 years should be impossible, particularly not for an authoritarian government, and I hold it against Putin that he didn't do that, although it is urgently necessary.

Reality check is that unlike the West, Russia and China do not wage war against their own people.

China certainly does, by imposing a one-child policy against its own people while exempting ethnic minorities from it. This policy results in population replacement, even without mass immigration, as can be observed by the steady increase of ethnic minorities in percentage of the population. Also, many Western governments have done a lot to increase fertility rates and the results are better in many Western countries than in Russia.

Regarding Turkey, the EU does apply the same PC/MC doctrine to it which is the reason why Turkey has not been admitted and will never be. And I don't see NATO having forced European countries, both members and non-members, to declare themselves multicultural states, permit mass immigration and appease muslims within its borders. If there is clear evidence of it, I would like to see it, but your case didn't convince me.

One day China is described as exterminating their minorities, the next as exterminating the Chinese people replacing them with the minorities. I guess it's my failure to adapt both extreme and contradicting positions at the same time that renders me the description of seeing China through rose-tinted glasses.

Regarding Putin, have you considered that he might not be as authoritarian as you imagine?

At least you are extremely pro-Turkey. Good luck with the Turks, Pasta! Gives nice stability to the NATO.

Not by me. If China is exterminating its minorities, why does their number increase and not decrease?

I guess it's my failure to adapt both extreme and contradicting positions at the same time that renders me the description of seeing China through rose-tinted glasses.

You do see China through rose-tinted glasses, as you praise its government for not waging war against their own people, while its population policy clearly contradicts this fact.

Regarding Putin, have you considered that he might not be as authoritarian as you imagine?

You cited Putin as an example of a "strong man" before, and I believed you. If I recall correctly, you also stated before, that we (in the West) need someone like him. Now, if he can't even enforce a successful population policy, how is Russia any better off than the West?

At least you are extremely pro-Turkey. Good luck with the Turks, Pasta! Gives nice stability to the NATO.

You must be desperately short of arguments to call me pro-Turkey. Turkey has done its best within the last 100 years or so to establish a homogeneous muslim, ethnic Turkish population all over the country, which had been an ethnic hodgepodge before. That was a smart and mostly successful policy and I acknowledge that, but it doesn't change me from being aware that they are our enemy.

Not today. I am not capable of saying much with any sense or clarity today, but I can grant you something. We'll have a whole of a lot to discuss in a thread comming near, at Gates of Vienna...

I can already point you a problem: You are "too" American if you know what I mean. Not take offense, I only hope that, when the time cames, my words will at least make sense in your eyes. It will be very interesting...

I tryed to make a long post. I tried several actually but it wasn't good now was it?

I'll just say to things and then resume the long post:Cutting the BS:

1-NATO must become the white-power-alliance. Kick the Turks out, invite the Russians. Invite Argentina, divide Brazil, put white and rich Brazil on Nato. Make white and reach Brazil colonise the rest of Brazil. Whoever messes with one white Nation, will be fu*ked by us all.The Huns; The Arabs and Berbers; The Mongols; The Turks, they were all kicked out from a coalition of white Nations. The bttle of Navas de Tolosa (which meant that the moors would never have a strong position in the Peninsula was won by a coalition á-lá-Lord-of-the-rings, by the Kingdoms of Portugal, Castille and Aragon, the Huns were stopped at the Catalunic Camps by a coalition of Germans, Celts and Romans. That is NATO); If you take NATO out, the E.U. will have more power or if that does not happen, will see dirty European militarism against other European Nations.

2- SOLZYEHNTZIN. Yes, Russia will become it. I hope so. And then I hope they will save us all. It may happen but it is utopian to wait for it. I agree entirely with him. Also, it's just like Julius Évola. European National (Ethnic) Nationalism in its best. Let's not talk about Nazis, its tabu. They were flawed but they had a future. E.U. does not.

Now what I wanted to say:

I always liked your comments very much and you have influenced me a lot. Thank you, you have been a good mentor.That does not mean that I agree with you in everything. I do not. Also, I cannot understand *why*, what drives you to fight this fight. I would really want to hear what are your "dogmas", what are your supreme vallues:It's not race;It's not ethnic Nationalism;It's not freedom;It's not individualism;It's not capitalism;it's not a superior culture;it's not a religion;it's not statism;it's not beauty;

IS IT TRADITION? It can't be, it would have then to be a superior Tradition that would englobate all that. Maybe it is. When you speak of soul, after you having discredit all of this it becames a little empty, you know.

Thank you for your nice words. I have been in your blog more times and, strange... you're good but strange.Well, I liked your comments, I will open a blog soon, I'll then leave the url in your blog, I hope you visit it once in a month or so (that's when I will post) I hope you to return afterwards, especially before I am gone out of GoV. That is, when I find a really worthy and demanding girlfriend :)

Have a good life pal,your friend and admirer, Afonso Henriques.

Now, I'll just hopen the window and smoke a few cigarettes in my fifth flor with view over Lisbon... I'll be thinking about the meaning of life...

It's been a pleasure for me too. Sometimes a bit of a circus, but overall a pleasure. I will check out your blog when the day comes.

If you want NATO to be all-white then you'll have to kick America out of it. America is a black-and-white nation since 1865.

I want America kicked out, but for a different reason. America should be kicked out of European military affairs altogether. It'd be for the best for both of us. American presidents, when they feel the need to show that they are big boys will have to deal with the Mexican border instead of starting (or aggravating) a war somewhere in Europe. And European leaders, well, they'll have to learn to become big boys.

What drives me? - The search for truth.What is my recipe? - Leadership. In stable times, leadership within the frames of tradition. In chaotic times, strong leadership. In catastrophic times, a providential man.

Strong leadership creates the traditions and the identity of the people he rules. So what are the traditions and the identity based on? Race, culture, religion, individualism, nationalism, ...? Well, bake your own cake! As long as it is edible there are a number of different ways to do it.

What are my dogmas? - Why should I have dogmas? I do not have dogmas for judging if I like a painting. Is it the blue colour that makes me like the painting? Is it the red colour? This is ridiculous. It's not possible to judge it from such one-dimensional aspects. Holism is the only approach.

Afonso, try to make a list of criteria for what makes you like a painting, and I'll find a painting for you that you do like but that will break your criteria. Do you see what I mean?